Professional Documents
Culture Documents
28 August 2016
PHIL 101
This piece records Socrates calling out those who accuse him of
earth and making the worse into the stronger argument, and he
teaches these same things to others. He calls his accusers liars and
wisdom. What exactly does that mean? He goes on to talk about how
knows little, while that man believed that he holds a vast knowledge of
wisdom by talking about artists who create their works not with
claim that having great knowledge is not necessary when you have
natural talent.
claim was he was not forcing his ideals upon those young minds but
that those men were naturally drawn to Socrates teaches because he
history there is a common trend of youth pushing away from the elder
1 September 2016
Philosophy 101
Phaedo Response
I think this is the first time that I really felt sorry for Socrates. The poor guys is
seventy-something years old, has been put on trial by his own countrymen, is about to
die, and now he has people hovering around his deathbed, asking him philosophical
questions. If I were Socrates, I would just want to take a nap! As I read the questions that
Simmias and Cebes asked him about whether looking forward to death was a form of
suicide and thus dishonorable for a philosopher, I found myself thinking, Whats the
point of debating this? It doesnt change the fact that after this dialogue, Socrates is going
to have to just that! So I guess I was asking: whats the point of philosophy if by the end
of the day, nothing will change? Why did Socrates, and so many other philosophers,
I dont think Ill ever be able to answer this question; theres just too much about
philosophy I will never understand. I can, however, try to attack it as best I can. From my
perspective, posing this question is like asking, Whats the point of art? Painting a
picture and hanging it on a wall doesnt actively make the world a better place; it doesnt
stop people from dying of poverty or war. So why create art at all? What about theater?
Why does that exist and what is the point of performing a play? Or what about sports?
Millions of dollars are thrown into the sports world every year so we can all watch a
bunch of sweaty people throw and kick balls around giant stadiums. Think of all the lives
we could have saved with that money. Looking at the world from that angle just makes
me depressed.
For me, I couldnt imagine a world without art; I honestly dont even think that
would be possible. I love creating and I truly believe that creativity is a God-given gift
that separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. I even appreciate sports
because of the unity that they create among individuals. All of these things (art, athletics,
philosophy) enrich the human experience. With that perspective I think I can understand a
bit more how Socrates felt about philosophy. He spent the majority of his life digging
deeper into what it means to be a human and is still challenging mankind to think. I know
that Phaedo is packed full of important questions and theories about the soul and life
after death, but honestly the fact that Socrates is willfully having these discussions just
23 October 2016
PHIL 101
Holbachs main claim is that free will does not exist. He begins
control over, including where we are born, our birth parents, our
physique, etc. From this, he states that our very nature, our survival
example of a thirsty man that will drink from a fountain, not out of
choice, but necessity. In contrast, that same thirsty man will abstain
from drinking the water if it is poisoned, again, not out of choice but
Yes, we are bound to the logic of this natural world, for example, we
dont have a choice to obey the law of gravity it just is a fact of life,
choice either, we would just float off into space and die. Now which
sounds like the better deal? My point is that I agree with Holbachs
argument of humanity having no control over the natural laws of this
world but I dont think that those laws that are irrefutable, facts of life
should be in the same category of free will. That mans innate response
is to drink the water to quench his thirst, but he doesnt have to. He
can choose to walk away and remain thirsty just like I can make the
choice to walk into moving traffic and end my life. Of course, I believe
that God gave us natural instincts to combat such foolish thinking, but I
Alex Kollar
13 October 2016
PHIL 101
Response
31 August 2016
PHIL 101
Response
Crito by Plato
The main issue posed in Platos Crito deals with what is defined
his dear friend, Crito, tries to convince him to break out. Plato presents
the Athenian law. He claims that it would be unjust to follow the wishes
remained stoic. However, this does beg the question of justice. I find it
Alex Kollar
10/31/16
PHIL 101
he/she has done only if he/she could have done otherwise. He also
draws on another unnamed theory that claims that no person is
action on his own will but is then threated to do that very action or he
forced but because he wants to, thus, Frankfurt offers this as a valid
they or their loved ones were being threatened. This, however, does
not pardon the action. Even though they were forced to commit an
consequences (legally), this doesnt mean that their sins are washed
beings, if you are forced to kill a woman and child because your family
committing the crime, but you still pulled the trigger. The justice
system may not make you pay for your crime; you will have to struggle
Alex Kollar
11 November 2016
PHIL 101
Response
and metals and believed that when wood burned or metal rusted that it
was this substance being released in the air; of course now we know
that this is false. Churchland claims that this can be applied to our
have mysteries of the natural world is like saying that theres no way
well understand why people feel sad because at one point in history
people thought the world was flat. Although I do agree that the human
Alex Kollar
11/14/16
PHIL 101
Response
and behavior. He argues that no matter who you are, if you are
exposed to events that cause pain you will experience pain. Though we
may all agree that losing a loved one or being hit by a car both cause
eventually deal with it in varied ways. The first response maybe similar
but a psychopath will not have the same response as sane person.
he goes on to say that it is not just the biological makeup that dictates
can only be given by an omnipresent, divine being who has the power
to create, not only conscious creatures, but also entire universes. Last
4 October 2016
PHIL 101
Response
rock and a watch. He says that when we happen upon a rock, we can
be assured in knowing that since the rock is a part of nature that it has
existed for a long period of time. On the other hand, when we happen
designer. Paley uses this analogy to explain that, like the watch, the
that were created for a specific purpose, and so also has an intelligent
designer; God.
If we are to follow his analogy of the rock and the watch, one
could question why the universe is more relatable to the watch rather
a need for an object to record and track time and so invented the
watch, but if one were to believe that the rock serves no actual
creates things that do not serve a purpose other than simply existing? I
would argue that everything in the universe has a purpose. Without the
rock, the inventor of the watch would not have the material to make
the watch.
Alex Kollar
12 September 2016
PHIL 101
Response
I just had these quandaries in my head and I didnt know why. I was so
young when I was thinking these thoughts; I guess I just wasnt afraid
his body. It seems to boil down to which is more reliable: the mind or
the body? I think the mind is easily tricked and our perspective and
reality can be easily distorted. Just think of the power that rhetoric has
believe something. But think about our bodies. When you put your
interference in that situation, your hand is hot and so your body reacts.
When you think about our natural instincts, though, it really just
comes back to the brain, the mind. However, this isnt the part of your
information.
This mind isnt the one that Descartes is talking about, though.
He talks about the mind that runs on imagination, spontaneity, and the
desire to analyze the world. So should we trust the body and its
responses? What about the parts of the human mind that crafts our
lenses through which we view and experience the world? Well we cant
really turn any of them off, seeing as they are all a part of what a
human being is, and they arent really separate parts at all. I
understand Descartes thinking, but at the end of the day these are the
traits that make us uniquely human and we rely on all of our senses to
2 October 2016
PHIL 101
makes up our reality. He first claims that our five senses are the tools
distorting them in our minds. For example: although a pig with wings is
the idea of a pig and the concept of flying and combine them
together to create that image. This, however, does not make the image
a part of reality.
does that mean Nature is banished out of the world? I can only
but then doesnt really go into detail about what that means.
existence of God out of the equation. If the things that make up our
reality are only that which we experience or concoct in our minds, then
that would mean that it would be more than likely that an omnipresent
existence.
world that was created by God who, then, bestowed upon it the
etc.). One could make this argument in support of the author, but I still
believe that his explanation, or lack there of, for the possible existence
of God is too vague for it to line up with the basic concepts of Christian
theology. If reality were based only on our perception, then that means
Alex Kollar
21 October 2016
PHIL 101
Response
the road and having to choose between the two paths. On the other
compatibilism, the idea that free will and determinism are compatible.
He takes issue with this definition because this it would mean that
there are multiple possible futures and that the argument must rule
determinism seems unfair. If having free will means there are multiple
branching paths, it does not mean that those paths could, conceivably,
one might have to consider a single end goal that would call for such
predetermined paths. But why? Wouldnt it make more sense for the
Alex Kollar
4 September 2016
PHIL 101
Euthanasia Response
Rachels main question he poses in this article is, What is the difference between
killing someone and letting someone die? The way he illustrates this topic is quite
dramatic, but gets the point across. He sets up two scenarios, (1) a man who actively
drowns a child and (2) a man who refuses to save a child who is in the process of
drowning. To any sane person both of these men would be considered murders, but
perhaps not have the same court sentence. After illustrating these scenarios, Rachels
claims that it doesnt make sense to call both these men murders while not labeling
doctors who practice both active and passive euthanasia as such as well.
killing. But this definition cannot be used for every situation and I think its a bit unfair
when we consider the doctors who are at the forefront of this discussion. I appreciate that
Rachels does make it a point to talk about how these decisions weight on a doctors heart;
at the end of they day, they are human too. From my perspective, although I would like to
say that the topic and definition of euthanasia should be handled per individual case,
the AMAs law may not be perfect, and we can sit and argue about morals forever, I
understand why there is a strict code of conduct that limits a doctors actions. For me to
make any further opinions or judgments on the subject, I think I would need to hear the
Alex Kollar
18 September 2016
PHIL 101
This world of pain and hardship is all that humans have ever known. How, Hume
seems to ponder, can we possibly fully comprehend a world without such challenges?
From a biblical perspective we are able to rationalize such overwhelming questions with
the belief that humans were not made to understand such other worldly existences. Even
so, I think most believers have asked questions about what life will be like in the
presence of God in Heaven. Even if physical pain does not exist in such a place, will we
still feel the emotional grief and mourn our loved ones who were not taken into heaven?
What about God? Ive heard many people say that God feels pain, sorrow, and anger; He
even describes Himself as a jealous God. These are such powerful emotions that, from
our mortal perspective, have always been associated with negative circumstances and
experiences.
When God created Adam in His own image, I dont think He solely reflected His
form, but also His powerful emotions. It could even be argued that Genesis 1:26 isnt
referring to physical appearance at all, but to the unique ability to feel that separated
God from His creation. Continuing with this argument, it could explain Humes
ponderings about the differences between humans and animals abilities to experience
such pain. Every living creature experiences physical pain but since humans are more like
God (compared to the rest of creation) when we are physically hurt, we experience pain
Alex Kollar
22 September 2016
PHIL 101
Response
with these truths, I would assume that almost all of them would agree;
myself included. When facing the issue of evil existing in a world that
doesnt account for natural disasters. Even if the original sin never
happened and evil did not exist in the world, I doubt that this would
world exists to shape humanity into the people that God desires us to
be. This argument, soul-shaping, seems to fill in the gaps that Inwagen
points out in the free-will theory, but why would God create an
15 September 2016
PHIL 101
Response
all good and holy would create beings that were capable of such
the whole idea of God as the perfect Creator. Of course the Christian
response is the explanation of the Fall; but why was Satan even
that there is in fact an almighty God. He states, I clearly infer that God
the human race with an innate spirit that desires Him. This is where
other, heal each other, create for one another, and build things
together. I believe God did create us with the ability to choose to use
our gifts for good or evil. I mean if God is the Creator of the universe,
we cant call Him the Creator of only the good parts of the universe.
humanity would fall into evil yet He spoke us into being. I believe that
perfect.