all of my philosophy class posts from the fall semester

Earlier this year, right before the conclusion of my spring semester of my freshman year in college, I decided to "dump" most of the e-mails I had sent to, and received from, my professors then, so, in light of that post here a few months back (http://anytandeverything.blogspot.com/2014/05/some-of-my-e-mail-correspondence.html), here is the vast majority of the "discussion posts" in my philosophy class throughout this semester, sorted by week, with the exception of 10/26 (L.A.) & 11/12 (IDK...)!

9/7; "critical thinking":

"Whenever somebody is struggling through any situation in life, however major or minor the situation may be, other people often tell them to "persevere" through it instead of surrendering, thus ruining any chances of said situation ever improving. Those situations can involve something as simple as getting lost in some unfamiliar territory (which happened to me rather recently), or somebody contemplating their own life for whichever reason. Displaying enough perseverance sooner rather than later can fix any situation before it gets noticeably worse, but what if a similar situation occurs later, or keeps reoccurring on a regular basis? Should people step in to help the "damaged" person, should the "damaged" (for lack of a better word) person fight through it themselves, or somewhere in between? Perhaps reading about something that happened to me fairly recently will provide some perspective on this..."

"As June turned into July, and I set off for Japan after years of wanting to visit, my mind may or may not have wandered just enough to eventually get myself into trouble very early on in my long-awaited trip over there. Our first destination was Osaka, where the vast majority of my (approx. 30) group members landed, so thankfully, if I were to get lost anywhere there, at least it wouldn't be as large as Tokyo, or so I originally thought... Since people tend to occasionally be overly cautious when getting into any situation for the first time, I figured everybody in my tour group would have similar "jitters" early on, and as it turns out, I would be the only person getting into nearly the amount of trouble I would end up getting myself into later that night. After meeting everybody else who had arrived at the airport and sticking with them for a few hours (since we were all looking to "get accustomed" to the streets there), I decided to head off by myself through the "shopping arcade" area in which we had been dropped off, and that started the sequence that would only lead me back to our hotel the following morning! Feel free to dismiss this story here, but it only gets "better", and when I use that term here, I mean it ironically... Multiple times throughout that night (once I figured out that I had been traveling away from our hotel), I consulted my phone wherever Wi-Fi was available to re-orient myself, but I never took the especially desperate step of telling any of my fellow group members about the situation I had accidentally gotten myself into until after I returned, although I did do something else out of equal parts fatigue and frustration upon finally finding our hotel around 1 A.M.: I inserted some JP¥ coins (why do we not have $ coins here?) into the first vending machine I found, only finding out ("the hard way") the following morning that the can I got out of that machine was a canned lemon margarita, not soda! As dumb of a decision as that turned out to be, at least I didn't break down on the streets of Osaka (or anywhere, but especially in a foreign country), or commit any crimes involving cars/trucks/vans/buses/drivers themselves/etc. in order to resolve the situation sooner; instead, I re-oriented myself after unknowingly going the wrong way for too long, and made my way back to the hotel without anybody, local or fellow group members, finding out about my ordeal that night, the following morning, or, for that matter, throughout the rest of the trip, which lasted eleven more days after that. If somebody like myself could get past getting lost in a foreign city on the very first night of an almost-two week trip, then I'm sure (1) I'm not the most careful person on the planet, and (2) Who's to say I'll be the last person getting into a similar situation in the future, yet not being able to display as much "perseverance" as I somehow did in that situation?"

9/14; "(Greek/modern) hedonism, part 1":

"Just as each season of a television series contains multiple "episodes", or each sports season contains multiple games, each "episode" of a certain emotion/situation is different. Hedonists all describe their beliefs differently, obviously, according to their generation, since Aristippus quotes fellow Ancient Greek philosopher Timon as being more critical than praising of him: “Such was the delicate nature of Aristippus, who groped after error by touch.” After being quoted on the effects of a hypothetical anarchist society, he then gets quoted answering multiple other critics:

on wealthy Ancient Greeks becoming more "self-sufficient" instead of "dependent":
"the one know what they need while the other do not." - basically, some people might have their minds set on goals "from the get go", while others don't;

being asked by Plato to give his opinion on Dionysius' lifestyle: "Do you think Dionysius a good man?" and the reply being in the affirmative, "And yet, he lives more extravagantly than I do. So that there is nothing to hinder a man living extravagantly and well." - despite being somewhat contradictory, such criticisms have, unfortunately, persisted into the present day, particularly since the 2008-9 worldwide financial crisis;

"To the question how the educated differ from the uneducated, he replied, "Exactly as horses that have been trained differ from untrained horses." One day, as he entered the house of a courtesan, one of the lads with him blushed, whereupon he remarked, "It is not going in that is dangerous, but being unable to go out."" 

"74-75. To one who accused him of living with a courtesan, he put the question, "Why, is there any difference between taking a house in which many people have lived before and taking one in which nobody has ever lived?" The answer being "No," he continued, "Or again, between sailing in a ship in which ten thousand persons have sailed before and in one in which nobody has ever sailed?" "There is no difference." "Then it makes no difference," said he, "whether the woman you live with has lived with many or with nobody." .... He enjoyed the favors of Laïs, as Sotion states in the second book of his Successions of Philosophers. - perhaps, sometimes, it is indeed better to take "the road less traveled", instead of taking the same road many others have taken...

To those who censured him his defense was, "I have Lais, not she me; and it is not abstinence from pleasures that is best, but mastery over them without ever being worsted." - wanting to "1-up" somebody else, instead of being "1-upped";

To one who reproached him with extravagance in catering, he replied, "Wouldn't you have bought this if you could have got it for three obols?" The answer being in the affirmative, "Very well, then," said Aristippus, "I am no longer a lover of pleasure, it is you who are a lover of money." - deflecting criticism of his "extravagant" spending by claiming the same thing about the critic;

"81. A courtesan having told him that she was with child by him, he replied, "You are no more sure of this than if, after running through coarse rushes, you were to say you had been pricked by one in particular." Someone accused him of exposing his son as if it was not his offspring Whereupon he replied, "Phlegm, too, and vermin we know to be of our own begetting, but for all that, because they are useless, we cast them as far from us as possible." He received a sum of money from Dionysius at the same time that Plato carried off a book and, when he was twitted with this, his reply was, "Well, I want money, Plato wants books.” - I agree with him here; I do think learning is indeed better long-term than money, just as long as one does what they are interested in - in my case, business happenings, and then languages - on their own terms instead of being pushed into doing so...

Aristippus was from Ancient Greece, while Feldman is a "born-and-raised" American, giving him a much more recent view of hedonism than Aristippus or any other Ancient Greeks. Feldman starts off rather "risqué", perhaps giving a nod to the massive growth of "XXX" magazines and videos, as well as people getting "drugged" and/or drunk, and especially about men being "womanizers". Going for simpler themes after that, he then proclaims "happiness" and "pleasure" to be different, with a particular claim that people "might experience pleasure when..not happy...", or being happy "even though he experiences no pleasure at many of the moments during that time...". As such, he disagrees with most all of his fellow hedonists on happiness and pleasure being the same; that is to say, he thinks they are decidedly different, and ever so discreetly tries to convince them to separate the two states of mind, even it they aren't interested in getting their minds changed by one of their own."

"Despite Feldman claiming that "the Good Life" isn't "worthy of swine", in so many words, enough people in modern life do seem to take their own "swine" "to the next level", regardless of how much trouble they end up getting themselves and/or other people into. Between the steroid scandals in sports, especially in Major League Baseball, the bankruptcy filings of many stage (music/Broadway/etc.) performers, and more politicians seemingly getting "booked" on corruption charges by the day, it seems as if extravagance has become "tolerated" instead of "looked down upon" in modern society. (see: my "XXX" reference in my 1st post) The thing is, the early 1980s were relatively similar, at least in terms of geopolitics, with the U.S. teetering in between recovery and recession, and (pre-E.U.) Europe and the (then) Soviet Union coming closer and closer to clashing every day, but if extravagance was a "thing" back then, it was mostly relegated to the (much more common) inner city neighborhoods of that era, where people lived far beyond their own means, perhaps hoping to impress their neighborhoods to enough of an extent they wouldn't get killed for not "going far enough" to impress others. Even now, in this modern day society that glamorizes excessive lifestyles (look at The Wolf of Wall Street most recently, since that's basically a three hour-plus fraternity/sorority party (no offense to any fraternity/sorority people here!), except in a marketing firm/stock trading type of company instead of on a college/university campus), there still seem to be enough voices speaking out in public against the people leading those livelihoods, and encouraging others to do the same (that is, the "overindulged" people, not the people speaking out against them), including those who have figured out that more harmless aspects of anything, particularly medical marijuana use, and minor amounts of profanity on television, have been unfairly targeted by "law and order" types looking to make more people "guilty by association" by outright banning such activities and prosecuting those found to be partaking in them, regardless of how minor said utterances of profanity or uses of (recreational) drugs they might be."

9/21: "(Greek/modern) hedonism, part 2":

"Often, "worth" is referred to in the context of how much it will get somebody in return for either finding it in the first place, or getting rid of it later on, only to rediscover it sometime even later in the future - think auctions, antique shops, and so on and so forth - as places and situations having the most "worth" contained within them. For social aspects of life, however, "worth" is much different than uncovering the "hidden value" in something - in fact, some objects/places/situations can indeed be worthless - not having any sort of "hidden value" to them. Feldman mentions the "deceived businessman" on page 42 of his text piece, but in the sense of getting contempt instead of love and respect from his immediate family. There is another context into which the businessman can be placed - one of uncontrolled/uncontrollable greed, such as the stereotypical greed portrayed in big screen Wall Street-based movies, such as the 1987 and 2010 movies under the name Wall Street - the first movie involves a massive insider trading scandal, and the sequel involves personal redemption, while both take place in the aftermath of real-life stock market crashes that, just like the 1929 lead up to the Great Depression of the 1930s, made everybody in the stock market at the time of each crash go broke almost in an instant - "worthless", in this overall context, since they basically went from sitting on thousands of dollars' worth of stocks, to nothing in the immediate aftermath, and since they probably spent many years in the markets prior to whichever crash they ended up getting trapped in, they probably weren't able to find training in any other industries, such as management, where they could probably pass some of their social "worth" down to employees looking to work their way up the ladder at whichever company they were trying to break into..."

"Most "normal" people derive pleasure from positive events, but what about those people who derive their pleasure from anything that most other people would find "disgusting" or "scary", like somebody who likes blood, drugs (illegal ones, such as cocaine), horror movies, or dark environments like city alleyways? Do they have such thoughts put in them immediately, or whether such opposite thoughts are "programmed" into them by other people? Nozick's "experience machine" is one that involves people programming their own minds with whichever experiences they want to experience, such as visiting a certain location (like myself, looking to return to Japan sometime sooner rather than later), or experiencing certain emotions that they might never have previously experienced in their lives. Feldman mentions the businessman in C3 as having "the respect and affection of his wife and children", only to have them feel "nothing but contempt" for him instead of "love and affection". Feldman, Nozick, and other hedonists all proclaim that they dislike being "deceived" by other people; they would prefer that people reveal their true feelings up front, like having people "hate (their) guts" or having their complete respect immediately. Feldman also mentions that perhaps the businessman doesn't know that he is getting deceived by everybody else, for instance, in his company - Isn't it human nature to seek respect instead of contempt, unless one is an "opposite" type of person, actively seeking out situations that would turn other people away in droves? It sure should be to most people in society, at least in my opinion..."

9/28: "Aristotle, part 1":

"Aristotle makes the claim throughout the excerpt that money is to only be used "liberally", while spending smaller amounts instead of taking larger amounts. Almost immediately, on page 19, he proclaims that the average man would prefer to be "with wealth when he is poor", instead of being poor with almost nothing. Aristotle mentions that wealth is not one's only goal with money; he claims that wealth is only "a means to an end", instead of the "end all-be all" of the obtaining of physical money. He also preaches "self-sufficiency" as being something that people should attempt to achieve as an "end" of an "infinite series" of charitable giving on page 21: "From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents, children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens, since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this; for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and friends' friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine this question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, not a thing counted as one good thing among others-if it were so counted it would dearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action." The "small spending" and "large taking" claims are both mentioned on page 27, with Aristotle mentioning "liberality" as something other than a "mode" or "state": "With regard to giving and taking of money, the mean is liberality, the excess and the defect prodigality and meanness. In these actions people exceed and fall short in contrary ways; the prodigal exceeds in spending and fails in taking, while the mean man exceeds in taking and falls short in spending. (At present we are giving a mere outline or summary, and are satisfied with this; later these states will be more exactly determined.) With regard to money there are also other dispositions-a mean, magnificence (for the magnificent differs from the lIberal man; the former deals with large sums, the latter with small ones), an excess, tastelessness and vulgarity, and a deficiency, *****rdliness; these differ from the states opposed to liberality, and the mode of their difference will be stated later." Overall, Aristotle would most likely be considered a major charitable donor today, given his pro-giving statements, yet would probably also be more open than most others to spending just enough money to get by, instead of saving everything, waiting for some "windfall" (like a multimillion-dollar auction or lottery win) that will most likely never arrive."

"Aristotle might make the claim about work days leading to paychecks->leading to money->leading to a house->so on and so forth, but what if people make other purchases either along the way, or after moving in to their new house? People might always tell others, for instance, that "well, I only want to officially close on my home buy right now... I'll figure out how to spruce it up later", but deep down, they almost always go further than just, to continue that example, buying a home. As for "means to an end" and "final ends", it's not just home buying that people seek with money-what about luxuries, such as high-end cars, or cruises, or new décor to put inside their homes? People do seek to purchase those items once they have enough saved up, or if they win a lottery jackpot (to follow up on that example from the end of my previous post), but they almost never have enough good luck to find themselves in one of those situations; most people are more like us, than the so-called "1%"-they work, and keep working, and might fall into "luxury" every so often, but not on an annual basis, or some timeframe that might be considered often enough to draw attention from other people, whether they already know or have never met those wealthiest of the wealthy before such unusual purchases, even if it does give them satisfaction."

10/5: "Aristotle, part 2, & Julia Annas":

"As everybody else seems to have already mentioned, the typical "hedonist" believes only in pleasure, regardless of whether or not a person is the only one on the planet who finds something pleasurable (like, as has been mentioned many times in class, terrorists, particularly fundamentalist religious terrorists, although that's a whole different topic, at least to me), while Aristotle and followers past and present believe in happiness, not pleasure, being "a means to an end". Aristotle's views are typically about everything, money included, all leading to some greater end point in life, even if a person encounters some "bumps" and/or "dips" (to use some road terms) along the way to that end point. Hedonists, meanwhile, think as pleasure as being ongoing, as long as a person still finds something to be so pleasurable throughout their life, instead of moving on to find something else to be more pleasurable in the unforeseen future. Aristotle's quote on page 29, right after the small number 9, seems to, depending on your own view(s), either contradict his own beliefs about "means to an end" and "the chief good", or they might offer a criticism, while also promoting the notions of "chivalry" and "compromise", as "much maligned" as those seem to be now-I personally agree with the latter sentiment:

"It is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g., to find the middle of a circle is not for everyone but for him who knows; so, too, anyone can get angry-that is easy-or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble...""

"Almost immediately in her short writing piece, Julia Annas offers a pointed criticism specifically of hedonism, immediately lamenting that most people tend to think of "happiness" and "pleasure" as just some feeling, and that to "be" something, like depressed or overjoyed, is to necessarily "feel" it. Obviously, not everybody has the same feelings as everybody else at any given moment, but that doesn't mean they can't show those feelings, even if they're fake where such things matter-deep down inside oneself. Annas specifically mentions helping others and even torture to demonstrate her point on page 239: "Being happy is easily taken to be feeling happy-as when I wake up in the morning-a kind of smiley-face feeling... ...Some people feel happy when helping old ladies cross streets; others feel "happy" when torturing puppies..." Common sense would probably lead any sane person to hope, at least if they're religious to some extent, that the "puppy torturer" burns somewhere deep inside some "purgatory" (to not mention the other religious torture chamber) somewhere, but some people, unfortunately, do take pleasure in torture, whether they're instigating it, or simply observing it-perhaps, then, to follow up my previous religious example with another one, the Buddha did get his religion right in ancient times when he told his followers, in so many words, to live life with as much simplicity as possible, instead of getting caught up in the rest of the world... Most modern-day Buddhist nations, at least from what I've noticed, seem to have done that example right-outside of the major cities over there, one tends to see nothing but lush natural secluded "hideaways"-perhaps we should look to a modern-day example of an ancient religious belief to avoid falling for mistaken thought processes, such as believing only in pleasure at all other (emotional/mental/religious/spiritual/etc.) costs!"

10/12: these 2 posts were up, but they just mysteriously disappeared later on, & haven't returned since...

10/19: "Rachels; moral philosophy":

"To take this line of thought a step further, what about the absence of said moral concept-impartiality-in one aspect of life that affects each and every country: political discourse! To look at the talk radio landscape, and cable news, that is all but dead in politics here, considering the bias involved with each T.V. channel/radio station. Particularly concerning among that troubling trend in our culture are those are use such platforms to promote what Rachels almost immediately denounces, and that is racism, particularly white racism. Rachels singles out "the white racist" on page 2 as not being "inherently brighter" than those who accept all people for who they are, in the form of a few rather pointed questions:

"Is there something about white people that makes them better fitted for the highest-paying and most prestigious positions?" To the typical KKK or Westboro Baptist Church member (since one group hates blacks, and the other hates LGBTQs), that might be the case, but to the rest of the general population that moved on from those outdated ideals decades ago, such "upward mobility" is open to everybody who gives just enough at their job to move up, especially to the point where the CEO of one of the world's top soda brands (PEPSICO.'s CEO, Indra Nooyi, and President, Shaiq Wani, are both Indian-born, yet both recently moved up to the top 2 levels within the company, opening up "big business" even more than ever for so-called "minorities", at least in this country.

"Are they inherently brighter or more industrious?" (see above)

"Do they care more about themselves and their families? Are they capable of benefiting more from the availability of such positions?" Different states have different populations, and even within those populations, there are differences, but when the country's worst poverty is mostly concentrated within most of the Gulf states, states as large as California and Texas can have the most illegal immigrants (look it up sometime...), and Michigan, which was the hub of the auto industry throughout many recent decades, can have its largest city, Detroit, looking more and more like Caracas, Venezuela (no offense to any Venezuelans here...) each day than some futuristic city in some classic sci-fi film, it's harder than one might think to think favorably of any race/creed/etc., since those populations have thrived in some locations (like the heavily Portuguese Ironbound in Newark, or "Koreatown" in mid-Manhattan, which I, myself, would rather see more of a "Japantown" (like that of L.A.) somewhere in Manhattan), and have suffered greatly in others, like Latinos in the Plains states, which have had the most English-only trends of all the states over the years, given that most of them have stayed along the coasts, particularly in Florida, California, and even around here, in various smaller communities within cities."

"Unfortunately, this post isn't about "cultural relativism", mentioned just above utilitarianism... Utilitarianism, however, is the following, to quote Rachels quoting 18th/19th century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham: "By the Principle of Utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question; or what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness." Notice how that quote ends; "...to promote or oppose that happiness." "...to promote..." That doesn't mean the same thing as "...to support...", no matter how often somebody tries to convince you otherwise! One of his followers was 19th century Scottish economist John Stuart Mill, who is quoted later on as proclaiming: “The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end.” Being an economist, he most likely meant what he said there to mostly refer to trade and other economic activities, instead of "deep" thoughts. The French Revolution, as extreme as it was overall for introducing the radically changed calendar, as well as "temps décimales" (decimal time), and the first variation of what we now know as the metric system, produced many unstable empires and republics over the next 200 years or so, and they're now on the Fifth Republic, finally looking more like our Presidential system than the monarchy that fell to all different types of radical political ideologies, mostly classical liberals/nationalists on one side, and secular socialists on the other."

10/26: As mentioned, I was in SoCal that long weekend, so there's nothing to show for this weekend...

11/2: "Plato, part 2" (part 1 occurred when I was in Cali):

"Whether it was as discussed by the two ancient Greeks, or is as discussed in today's society, a reputation is something that everybody has, regardless of "the 5 W's": who they are, where they come from/end up, what they do, when they do so, and why they do or don't do so. It follows everybody around, regardless of the goings-on in other peoples' lives, or events in the rest of the world; whether or not some person's reputation is actually affected in every moment of their lives is, I think, dependent on whether or not they had/have a "direct" effect on something or not. Referring to those who believe in justice being "a burden" on one's self early on in book II, Glaucon seems to counter the "general opinion" of his time: "That isn't most people's opinion. They'd say that justice belongs to the onerous kind, and is to be practiced for the sake of the rewards and popularity that come from a reputation for justice, but is to be avoided because of itself as something burdensome." In that case, could it be that injustice, like modern-day political protests, is, or will be, seen more and more as "the new normal", contradicting another phrase: "the more things change, the more they stay the same"? Unfortunately, aside from the recent political movements (Tea Party, Occupy something or other) in this country (which both "fizzled out", and rightfully so, in my opinion, for breaking many local protest-related laws in various cities in many states), the vast majority of political protests, which most people tend to see as being "unjust", have been ultra violent, regardless of whether or not they were in favor of, say, overthrowing a government, particularly an openly elected one, or dismantling one, most often via what I like to call all the "symbolic statue-toppling moments" the world has seen in recent decades, mostly after decades before bringing total misery to those nations' populations. Perhaps Glaucon meant justice/injustice on a personal level being "beneficial" or "righteous"; mind you, that's still illegal, at least here, but perhaps our society would be better off with most people "taking matters into their own hands" instead of being overly reactive to everything going on around them, from personal matters, to matters affecting the entire country, if not the entire world, to lead everybody to a more promising future than that which got left for each previous generation by their ancestors..."

"Despite putting his opinions out through a fictional version of one of his peers, Plato does tend to "have his wits about him" in persisting that it is the individual who is responsible for, and generally is, governing oneself instead of letting "society/the world at large" do so. Normally, when people get "interrogated" as Plato is getting done to him more often than not in the Republic, they tend to break down eventually and just tell people what they want to hear, instead of continuously challenging their interrogator's/interrogators' opinions. Plato especially holds on during his back-and-forth with Glaucon from pages 116-121, when Glaucon keeps pressing him on whether individual justice or collective peace is truly better for a person (119-120): "And, in truth, justice is, it seems, something of this sort. However, it isn't concerned with someone's doing his own externally, but with what is inside him, with what is truly himself and his own. One who is just does not allow any part of himself to do the work of another part or allow the various classes within him to meddle with each other. He regulates well what is really his own and rules himself. He puts himself in order, is his own friend, and harmonizes the three parts of himself like three limiting notes
in a musical scale-high, low, and middle. He binds together those parts
 and any others there may be in between, and from having been many things he becomes entirely one, moderate and harmonious. Only then does he act. And when he does anything, whether acquiring wealth, taking care of his body, engaging in politics, or in private contracts-in all of these, he believes that the action is just and fine that preserves this inner harmony and helps achieve it, and calls it so, and regards as wisdom the knowledge that oversees such actions. And he believes that the action that destroys this harmony is unjust, and calls it so, and regards the belief that oversees it as ignorance." Unfortunately, some people today can't seem to do much of anything for themselves; also unfortunately, in the end, it doesn't matter what brilliant things people have done for others in the world, just as long as they haven't kept themselves healthy/sane/etc. in the first place. For that matter, I think that example especially could've very well applied to immigrants moving between countries instead of living in the same country their entire lives, more than people devoting their entire lives to the same country, since what does it matter deep down inside if a person is looking to get a "clean slate" in a new home if they've either neglected their previous home, or worked to actively harm it instead of helping it? In my family's case, that would be like any of my Irish ancestors joining the IRA in any of its installments, or any of my Peruvian ones defecting to Spain between independence and Francisco Franco's 1930s-40s romp all over freedom (considering some more nationalist Spaniards still hold many of their former Latin American colonies in utmost contempt); they would certainly be doing more harm than good in those movements/circumstances; if they took even the slightest bit of "pleasure" in doing so, even worse; as ineffective as D.C. seems to have been in recent years/decades in keeping itself "scandal-free", so to speak, I'm sure most people worldwide would probably give everything to have our federal government, or that of Canada/insert western European federal government here, since, even during WWII, or Watergate, or any other low points in D.C.'s history, at least "justice" didn't openly involve mass atrocities in the name of "the rule of law", such as that is now..."

11/9: "Plato, part 3/free will, part 1":

"Plato's view that "justice pays/injustice does not pay" is perhaps best shown on page 261 (Step. 589"c" and "e"), when he makes the point that just actions/statements are "truthful", unjust actions/statements are "falsehoods", and questions whether robbing gold or other materials leads to "a more terrible destruction" than doing so lawfully.

On "justice pays"/"injustice doesn't": “From every point of view, then, anyone who praises justice speaks truly, and anyone who praises injustice speaks falsely. Whether we look at the matter from the point of view of pleasure, good reputation, or advantage, a praiser of justice tells the truth, while one who condemns it has nothing sound to condemn without knowing what he is condemning.”

Here, Plato is referring to "law-abiding" citizens usually following the laws, and speaking out in support of said laws instead of letting said laws be used against them; in other words, it is human nature, according to Plato, for people to follow laws instead of activelyseeking to break them. Criminals and other "lawbreakers", however, fall under anotherdefinition entirely, in Plato's view: Once they break one law, they usually end up breaking many more laws after that initial criminal act, suggesting that even lawbreaking is as much of a "vice" as drinking/gambling/sex/smoking/etc.; any of which can get people in severelegal trouble if they engage in too much of it within a short enough of a timeframe in order to be considered "serial offenders" by law enforcement.

on gold/"destruction": “How, then, could he fail to be wretched if he pitilessly enslaves the most divine part of himself to the most godless and polluted one and accepts golden gifts in return for a more terrible destruction than Eriphyle's when she took the necklace in return for her husband's soul?” As with the previous claim about justice/injustice, Plato seems to prefer his gold to be legal, instead of "counterfeit", as somebody stealing gold or other precious metals would essentially be doing. Unfortunately, it seems as if modern society has placed even more of an "importance" on counterfeiting, considering said practice has spread from almost entirely precious metals to include more recent objects, particularlyelectronic ones, such as old records, VHS cassette tapes, CDs, DVDs, and even non-electronic materials, such as guns and other potential massacre weapons. Plato seems to have believed just enough in the existence of a "****" (excuse me...) for gold counterfeiters, perhaps leaving their fates to be sealed by whichever deity he believed in instead of the rest of ancient Greek society at large."

"It's been 2 months already? I could've sworn we were just in September just last week, judging by how all these discussions seem to have "tied in" to each other almost seamlessly... All kidding aside, however, "determinism" seems to be one of those topics that almost never actually gets referred to by its own name-usually, people refer to it as "fate", or as exercising "free will", in this case. An incredibly common example now of "human freedom (being) an illusion", as Chaffee refers to in his definition of "determinism", is commercial air travel, with people being forced to spend hours, regardless of whether their flight is a few dozen miles from a location within a state/country to another location within the same state/country, such as somebody flying from Newark to Atlantic City on business (since both of those airports are "international") or even longer for international flights, such as flights from, for example, the U.S. to Germany or Italy. Before 9/11, and particularly before the turn of the millennium, travelers were not only allowed, but encouraged, to arrive as close as possible to their flight's/flights' scheduled departure times, with minimal security present to obstruct passengers' progress, beyond the standard metal detectors screening passengers and their luggage. Ever since 9/11, the process has been: metal detectors, physical pat-downs, body scanners, and even the ticketing process has been lengthened, with passengers seemingly required to give more of their personal information each and every time they reach an airport looking to take a flight, considering the risks of identity theft involved with having personal information stored anywhere where hackers attempting to use other peoples' information for their own gain could possibly be lurking. Normally, being "stuck in the previous decade/century/etc." is considered bad, but this might seem to be an area where "being stuck in whenever" might be good: Sweden, in northeastern Europe, has generally kept its airport security at 1980s levels even after 9/11, considering the Scandinavian countries' long-standing reputation for being incredibly low-crime nations, at least by our standards, and those of other similar countries, such as the rest of Europe, which, unfortunately, due to terrorist attacks and attempts on their soil, have mostly followed our lead in ramping up security to extreme levels, thus removing 99.99% of the "fun" of air travel and replacing it with 99.99% "tantrums" on the part of everybody from passengers, to security people, to airline agents, to flight crews... This actually has me somewhat worried about returning to Japan, as I'm planning on doing - aside from the "spending 2 1/2 months over there" part, why spend countless hours waiting to connect to another flight in another airport for another agonizingly long wait just to return there to begin with?"

11/16: "free will, part 2/soft determinism":

(I made a bit of a "teasing" comment beforehand about "disagreeing with myself" here) 

"One type of external constraint is one seen more often overseas than here, but when that constraint is broken, it almost always reaches us: violence at sporting events between different sets of fans, particularly in "rivalry" games where either or both of the two competing teams and/or fan bases "hate each other's guts". Just because it is more prevalent overseas, doesn't mean it isn't present here, though; teams within close geographic proximity of each other tend to have every game split between both teams' fans, regardless of which of the teams is hosting the game. When both fan bases behave themselves, and celebrate their teams' successes while perhaps gently taunting opposing fans, those sporting events don't make headlines outside of the two teams' local media. It is when such events spiral into violence between sets of opposing fans, however, that almost always get subjected to ridicule from other people outside of those groups, since that isn't (A) guaranteed, and (B) the intent of sporting events having public attendance in the first place. When such incidents have occurred in past years, leagues everywhere have usually responded by closing venues to fans for short lengths of time, but unfortunately, such drastic measures have yet to curb sporting event violence. There could very well be more drastic measures taken to curb that even more, but, unfortunately, fans everywhere seem to have yet to commit themselves to simply enjoying attending sporting events, instead of having to pick fights with every set of visiting fans, who they claim are "invading" their team's building, who they happen to come across. This is where, instead of supporting what the rest of the world does in terms of its sporting culture, I tend to support our leagues more in that regard, considering the tendencies of such split crowds to be relegated (no pun intended...) to geographically close teams, or neutral site games such as the college basketball and football championships, and the Super Bowl in the NFL, to limit visiting fans to minimal amounts, so as to prevent violence from breaking out, and also to allow fan bases to feel safer in their own buildings, instead of feeling as if they have to "defend" their buildings from "invading" fans simply looking to catch their team away from their own venues."

(Here, I went the exact opposite route: not "disagreeing with myself"!)

"Regardless of the amount of "public awareness" campaigns that get "blasted" across our media, it is up to each person to prevent premature deaths from use of illegal substances before other activities, such as, most often, drunk driving. Sometimes, sports violence and drunk driving go together, as has happened almost every time teams have discounted beer for "special" games. In any case, providing awareness of something else, that "something" being designated driving instead of drunk driving, is crucial to preventing as many crash-related deaths as possible. That, unlike sports violence, is something that individuals can control, being that they are generally within the company of dozens of family and friends instead of thousands of complete strangers. Occasionally, if everybody goes "off the deep end" in terms of their own (alcoholic) drinking, then there might be "unmitigated chaos", but generally, if even just a single person controls their drinking, then the likelihood of everybody in a certain group returning home safely instead of leaving home one night, and never returning due to a totally controllable incident, in which the impact tends to last for an incredibly long time."

11/23: "free will, part 3 (indeterminism)/existentialism, part 1":

"Indeterminists believe that freedom of choice is indeed a reality, yet also that some undetermined actions are "random", and that some actions are not preceded by certain given conditions. Libertarians (social libertarians, not political libertarians) believe that people only need exercise their own free will to make genuinely free choices. For all intents and purposes, however, despite their noticeable differences, the two ideologies are mostly the same, as evidenced by the general "categories" that a person of each philosophical leaning might mention upon being questioned. "Pragmatist" William James might be the best proponent for them being the same, as evidenced by his mentioning "self-improvement", "morality", "religion", and "social improvement", which occasionally "bleed over" into other areas, such as politics. Religious fundamentalists, in particular, might follow more extreme versions of one or more of James' categories, especially while pushing those beliefs on as many "non-believers" as possible. Regardless of the extent to which somebody follows each of those "tenets", or whether they even follow some of them to any extent, almost everybody on the planet with enough awareness of the world around them should follow the same general system, regardless of their political leanings, or whether or not they are considered the "minority" in terms of politics, religion, or some other social "status" that they have committed themselves to, regardless of the "ebb and flow" of those beliefs in whichever country those people happen to live in."

"J.P. Sartre immediately starts off by telling his readers he will openly "...defend existentialism against some charges...", but he doesn't do so in a broad sense throughout the entire piece. His belief is that "essence precedes existence", since it is found in every human, thus meaning that it makes each person their own personal example of a "universal concept" that is "man(kind)". He also mentions that that is one of the few ideas that the 18th-century French philosophes didn't discard in their broad atheism, which otherwise dismissed the notion of a "supreme being". It is also mentioned that French philosophes Denis Diderot, Voltaire, and German "kritik" Emmanuel Kant were the most prominent proponents of that ideology. Kant, in particular, is mentioned as a belief in a "wild-man", who is natural in nature, and the bourgeois, who were more notable for toppling multiple French Napoleonic empires over the years than preaching beliefs. Overall, modern-day atheists might also dismiss the notion of "essence", unlike the philosophes, bourgeois, and kritik, but they have mostly been even more public with their (lack of) belief(s) in a "supreme being", mostly discrediting them in the minds of everybody who does believe in a "deity"."

11/30: "existentialism, part 2":

"The "young man" Sartre mentions is a student of his whose older brother had been killed in "the Blitz" that the Nazis led on London between September 1940 and May 1941. Complicating his already tough choice between leaving for London were two things: (1) his parents' constant fighting, and (2) rumors that his father was a closet Nazi instead of helping the Allied armed forces. Through all their personal troubles, there were 2 situations he and his mother were clinging on to: (1) his willingness to avenge his older brother's death, and (2) her thinking that her son was the only "consolation" she had left, after the father left both of them. Eventually, the son did leave London to fight with the Free French Forces in London, spending a night in a Spanish rebel camp (the side fighting against Franco and company) before being faced with another choice: to head for England and be stuck in some office instead of the front lines, or to Algeria, in the midst of constant pounding of gunshots from all parties involved in the war, thus testing his decision making abilities: to risk overseeing the deaths of many more British and French soldiers from the then-blitzed London, or his own death across hundreds of miles of war zones."

"In general, for somebody or something to be "authentic" is for that person or thing to be considered "actual/genuine/real/verified/etc.", but that word in existentialism has a decidedly different meaning. In existentialism, for something to be "authentic" is for it to tend to be "all things to all people", having to be more versatile instead of stubborn, as somebody or something not considered "authentic" is usually considered to be. Various other philosophers' opinions are considered in shaping that definition; Søren Kierkegaard is mentioned as having believed in the "public" making even the most extraordinary things just plain ordinary, for example. Despite his mention of the "trivialization" of just about everything, the claim is later made that he nonetheless had more respect for "ethical" people than all others. Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher, is said to have referred to society as a "herd", preferring the "noble morality" of the ancient Greeks and modern Jews, thinking those to be superior to other lifestyles. Martin Heidegger, a later German philosopher, takes the notion of the "self" another step further, claiming that people shouldn't subject themselves to the "tranquilization" or "alienation from one's own self"that he thought too many people had subjected themselves to in his time. Whatever their specific opinions, all of them agree that "authentic" living is less "hectic" than any other life, and that it leads to less "anxiety/despair/dread", instead allowing people to be "delivered over to (them)selves" in any possible situation."

BONUS that I posted 12/5 as a sort of "wrap up" on the course, mostly focusing on "stereotypes":

"BONUS, which I was planning on saving for this week, but we all ended up getting a free 20/20, regardless, so I'll just leave this here instead of letting my general thoughts on this semester get "left hanging" in the back of my own mind:"

"When this semester started, IDK about you people, but I had just come from straight A's and B's all throughout my own K-12 years into one of the lowest points in my academic life my freshman year here, wherein I just barely survived my intermediate algebra and spreadsheet modeling classes my fall semester last year, and stats last spring... Needless to say, you know what I did instead of letting my complete survival in those three aforementioned classes drag me down even further this semester? I set myself up to fulfill one of my lifelong (travel-related) goals and headed off to Japan for slightly more or less than two weeks last July, and decided that I would put the vast majority of my academic efforts this semester into returning there A.S.A.P., seeing as I'd be able to get quite a few more credits out of the way in addition to my credits here, and, as of right now, that plan of mine is still just barely within my grasp, but, as I'm sure all of you know, there are such things as either "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat", or, vice versa, "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory", so I'm planning on remaining on guard these last few days in order to make sure the former of those two scenarios comes true for myself this time around, shifting the "burden" from here to slightly south of here on the campus of Temple University down in Philadelphia, as well as a few thousand miles west (crossing the Pacific)/east (traveling over all the other continents) on their Tokyo campus! That, not necessarily alone, but mostly that, has managed to keep me going this semester, at least through right now, just short of the very end of this semester, but there's something else that I consider myself somewhat normal, or perhaps anti-stereotypical, for liking, yet some of you might find that weird, to say the least:

...I'm sure all of you practically grew up with the previous generations of most pop culture phenomena, particularly when it comes to media or sports moments of various types, so I have a question for all of you to consider going forward: What is it about "stereotypes" that gets people today seemingly all "stuck up" about everything now? Take, for instance, to fit some rather common gender stereotypes in here, the increasing numbers of female sports fans who regularly watch games on TV instead of "channel surfing" through the rest of their available channels, as well as occasionally attending games in person... Also, what about all the male fans of various female-oriented pop culture "phenomena", such as the Disney princesses, in particular, since I, for one, consider that to be especially relevant over the past year or so... What about the "old geezers" everywhere who display more "tech-savvy" capabilities than some of us, or East Coast people liking West Coast stuff, or vice versa? Would such "cross-interest" have been widely considered to be so "normal" even back before all of us were born? I'd say probably not, which I'm sure some of you would disagree with me on, but you know what? That's one of the main privileges of living in a part of the world that seems to have struck just enough of a historical balance between "ultra-modern" (like most East Asian nations) and "traditional" (like most African/European nations): just about every "phenomenon" reaches us at some point in time, if we didn't start it in the first place, allowing all of us to judge them to the extent we want to judge them, and determine whether or not that is something worth liking, disliking, or either just downright obsessing over or despising?

If you were to task me with listing my likes/dislikes/"obsessions"/"hatreds" in no particular order, I'd most likely list them like so:

"obsessions", at least as of right now: Japan, obviously, since I'm still looking to get back there just months after originally visiting that place; and, by extension, most of the culture over there, including Disney's $1.2B (that's "billion", with a "B"!) Frozen, which, considering it had just premiered in Japanese at the very end of last June, was practically everywhere over there, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's still everywhere over there right now, or a few months from now!

likes: sports, to the extent that that’s practically the only thing you’ll see me watching when I have nothing else to do, although that doesn’t mean that’s the only thing ever on my television screens… also, you’ll often hear me listening to jazz slightly more often than other music genres, although that’s more of a location thing, being right near Broadway and having a radio station devoted exclusively to that music in Newark…

dislikes: politics, which I’m sure everybody dislikes deep down inside, ‘cause doesn’t it seem as if nothing positive ever gets done, no matter who gets elected, and no matter what they do?

“hatreds” (stuff I especially dislike): well, if I had to give only a single thing I despise, one of the main things I’d tell you I particularly despise is reality television, but I’m sure most people secretly despise most of those shows, so, to make this more personal, I’d say vandalism, like in bigger cities like N.Y.C. or others… IDK if all of you people have seen photos of the MTA subways circa, perhaps, 1980, but if your eyes haven't been subjected to MTA subway photos from that era, I would encourage you to avoid searching for them at all costs - the trains were just downright filthy and ugly back then, more like some dystopian future novel instead of a functioning transit system!

Now that I've gotten all of that out of the way, I would encourage you to consider your own lives/interests/goals/plans/likes/dislikes/situations/etc., since that will help you determine your path through the foreseeable future, and I'm sure you'll feel better along with having a more definite future ahead of you!

“The vast possibilities of our great future will become realities only if we make ourselves responsible for that

future.” - Gifford Pinchot, first-ever chief of the U.S. Forest Service; two (non-consecutive) term Republican

governor of Pennsylvania"