Aristotle, afterward

Aristotle focuses on excellence, and how we can and should strive for it. I will try my best to analyze his work, for it was difficult for me to figure out his exact meanings behind each section. First, I believe that Aristotle makes the connection of being excellent (virtuous) to having a happy (fufilled) life. He delves into the idea that happiness of the soul is equivalent to excellence. I suppose that he would mean that if can activate what the desires of our soul entail, we will become virtuous.

In order to achieve this fufillment, we must become excellent not by natural dispositions but by habituation. In other words, we must first "engage ourselves in an activity" rather than let the activity force an engagement upon us. For example, we must force ourselves to read a novel out of interest rather than wait upon a teacher to tell us to.

Aristotle also writes multiple times about contrasting ideas such as pleasure and pain, deficiency and excess, and rashness and cowardice. I do not think that he speaks about one characteristic over the other symbolizing excellence, but rather than finding a just and moderate in between. However, he also believes that the excessive state is more contrary to moderation because it is these that we are more drawn to- thus create a natur-istic (?) habit. When we should create a habitual habit.

I do agree with Aristotle in that the closer we come to finding the characteristics of our soul, we will find fufillment. This is because I believe to act on intuition is greatest. Aristotle mentions that we must first engage on an activity to become excellent and virtuous. I agree with this, but we also must listen to ourselves and what can bring our soul to life.

I feel like there are a lot of contrasting ideas that Aristotle mentions, many of which were slightly confusing and will be much more effectful if discussed in class!

A final judgement call

So, after yesterday, I still haven't come to a conclusion on whether seeking the truth is more fufilling than living in stagnant happiness. However, I have thought more about the negative and positive effects of both situations.
In the case of living a routine life, with complete satisfaction, there will never be any challenge or something to thrive for. However, one will forever be happy. Why change that?

Now, the other side of the discussion- searching for truth seems to bring more argument. In my view, most of the time when a person goes seeking for the truth or seeking for something better, the person gets hurt. Take, for example, Michael Jackson and Ana Carolina Reston. Jackson is someone who continually believes that he can look better and there is always something he can fix to make his life better. Look at him now, he looks like an emaciated animal. He may think that he looks healthy, but his body definately is not. Ana Carolina Reston is another example who has taken seeking the truth to an extreme. Reston was a Brazilian model who suffered from anorexia. I use the past tense because she literally starved herself to death. She is not the only example of a person who believes his or her life can be better if they were only a bit skinnier. She continually thought that she could be thinner and more beautiful, even at the point of sheer skin and bones. Again, she may have thought she was healthy, but she evidently was not.

Of course these are some extreme examples, but more and more people everyday fall victim to these types of situations. The phrase "you can never be too rich or too thin" symbolizes a part of this longing for something better. If we are always searching for something that is not there, that we think might be just a little bit better, we can really hurt ourselves- physically and emotionally.

I Dream of Gorgias

The title just seemed to roll off the tongue well and I suppose with all of the thought on the play and life inquiries, the title is sufficient. Anyways, after looking over my post about a week or so ago, I know that whatever I believe to be indicative of time and money well spent has not greatly changed. In a broad perspective, that is. In specifics, I think that my views are a bit different.

I am tempted to believe that a self-fufilled lifestyle would be most indicative of time and money well spent. By this, I mean that by the end of one's college career, he or she is living a life that makes him or her happy. Well what makes them happy? We discussed this in class quite a bit, and I think that it comes down to something you do that feel good about. And when this occurs, there is no denying it. People can ask, "why do you feel so content?" And I believe that sometimes you just know- there is that sentimental feeling/emotion that one can acquire. It is rare, but it is there.

A few weeks ago, I would have thougt that more hands-on aspects of life would be indicative of time and money well spent- things like a well-paying, successful job perhaps. However, I did believe that one must be content with what he or she is doing, which is what I believe now as well.

In order to be wise, I think that one needs to accept all possibilities of life. I cannot narrow my focus on only one thing. Even though I mentioned before that I need to do only what makes me happy, I think that in order to be wise, we can still do these things but experience others as well. For instance, if eating peanut butter and jelly sandwhices make me happy (which of course they do), I could broaden my perspective on the sandwhich and use a different kind of bread. Now, I am more knowledgeable about what else can make the sandwhich. Of course this may be an odd way to approach wisdom, but who ever said there was only one meaning to wisdom? In order for us to be wise, we must acknowledge all aspects of life.

The truth hurts..

After today's discussion in class, I couldn't help but think about the idea of whether or not I should seek truth or dwell in a stagnant happiness and contentment. For the rest of the day, I have been back and forth several times on this strong topic of concern. The first aspect of this query that hits me is why should I change something that already makes me happy? Why fix what's not broke, right? Well then I start to think if there could be something better, or even more truthful and valuable, out there.

For instance, I have a very strong belief that a book I once read titled, "A Child Called It" by Dave Pelzer, is a true story and all the stories are based directly on his experiences with child abuse, with maybe a few minor tweaks here and there. One day when word got out that the book was fabricated, I refused to believe it because I had empathized with this child from the moment I started to read it and had put my heart into the book's two sequels. I felt so much emotion while reading this book that knowing the truth would in someway lessen the passion that I once felt. After class today, I realized that maybe it is not right to believe or have faith in something that makes you feel emotion if it's untrue; I feel like I would be deceiving myself. However, this also brings me to another very controversial, yet important topic.

Religion is ubiquitous in our society today, in so many different ways. There are so many different Gods, Deities, and faiths that people believe in or bow down to daily. But what if someone told a true believer of God that he wasn't real? And that there is a much better God or even there is no God? If someone with a rhetoric as powerful as Gorgias's could convince someone to believe the latter, it just seems to be wrong. Religion has such a strong influence on so many people that it just seems wrong to make oneself look for a better way of life if he or she is already content with a faith or God. Of course there are more minor matters of life which can change a person's view, like being told "The Hills" is staged. But in the end, I think it is still the same idea.

I have always believed in karma. If I do good, good things will happen to me. If I do wrong, bad things will happen to me. But again, after today, we've realized that even those who lie, cheat, and steal can have good things happen to them if they can get away with their criminal acts. So what is the point of always being moral? I suppose to have an intrinsic fufillment- But does that bring success? This is a very concerning topic to me, and I feel that it will take more than a few days to realize what the right answer is..or if there is one.

A Varied Vocation

In Will Campbell's "Vocation as Grace", he accounts on a time in which he asked a circus man why he did what he did. Aside from him saying that it was a rush of adrenaline and good pay, the man said he did it because his family was up there with him. So Campbell asks, "But why do they stay up there?" The man replies by saying, "Because I drink too much!"

In this segment Campbell is challenging the 'conventional Christian notion' that a vocation relies purely on oneself. In this case, he believes that we depend on others and others depend on us for strong impulses and callings. For the circus man, he was dependent and reliant on his family every night due to his frequent intoxicated self. If it weren't for them, he could be dead.

I concur with Campbell in the sense that others have a major influence on how we are inspired to act or live. If it was just a world with ourselves, we would have nothing to relate to or model after. Also, it is much more enjoyable to interact with others than to be limited to a monotonous lifestlye.

Plato and justice

In the final half of "Gorgias", the topic of justice and virtue is discussed between Socrates and Callicles. Callicles believes that the most powerful and better ones of a community can acquire control over inferiors. Socrates believes in a natural justice is which everyone deserves equal opportunities.

One of Callicle's strongest arguments is that which regards to the pleasure/pain argument. He thinks that it is most pleasurable to realease oneself of all pain and restraints. This will inevitably allow one's desires to grow without a limitation.

Socrates strongest argument consists of his analysis on how to live the fullest life. He concurs that one must act in the name of purity and wellness (or good) in all situations. One must by strong, healthy and promote justice in his or her life to fufull a lifetime.

Although this was written over 2000 years ago, I believe that Plato's work is still relevant today. With a ubiquitous topic such as this one, many will indefinately keep analyzing their lives. I believe that Socrates contributes the best arguments and ideals on the discussion, for he is most confident and less likely to concur with the opposition. I found "Gorgias" to be slightly confusing in certain areas merely for the style of speech. With a deep analysis, however, I was able to sometimes find a valuable virtue to look up to.

The Great Ganders of Gorgias

Initally, I find myself on Socrate's side of the conversation. I find him to be much more reasonable in the conversation than Gorgias. He is constantly asking Gorgias about his expertise, but Gorgias refuses to give a complete, fufilling answer. It is frustrating to read for it lingers on for quite some time.

Polus differs from Gorgias because he simply complies to whatever Socrates says. He never truly gives his opinion unless he is bickering or contrasting what Socrates states. However, in the most simple of terms, Socrates says that to do wrong is much worse that a wrongdoing. Polus says that a wrongdoing is much worse than to do wrong.

Socrates believes this because he thinks that a mental state is more important than a physical one. If one can be psychologically sound, then he or she will be healthy. Polus believes that a wrongdoing can harm or possibly kill you, thus is much worse than to do wrong.

I find this specific argument to be most interesting, because both provide sufficient reasoning for their conclusions. I also find the conversation about rhetoric to be intriguing. Gorgias mentions that if one is familiar with a rhetoric, he or she need not know any other expertise.

An argument I think Gorgias could have made would have been to actually expand on his expertise. He never actually stated what is was that he professed in. It leaves Socrates to a state of confusion and misunderstanding.

Work to live vs. Live to work

Abigail Zuger wrote a piece called "Defining a Doctor" in which she focuses on two young doctors and their ways of working in the field. There is a man who never works a minute later than his hours declare, only performs his specified duties, and has no emotional attachments to any patients. The woman often works overtime to complete a job or fufil a patient's needs, uses her free time at home to check up on patients, and usually does work outside of what is asked of her.

The question here is does the medical field need more of the "male doctor" type or the "woman doctor". Although there may be no difference in the chances of the different patients getting well, what doctor would one reccommend if he or she was becoming ill? The man completes his job to an end and is well rested while the woman finds no ends in her responsibilities and is constantly sleep deprived.

In my opinion, the medical field is seeing a large decrease in the type of the woman doctor. Many people focus so much on their text books and studies, that there is no time for external work these days. Not only does the woman clearly work harder than the man, but she has an emotional attachment to her job as well. As much as I think that the woman would make a better doctor, I think this world can only accept the man. He still knows what he is doing and has a healthier mental mind than the woman.

College for thought

To observe the different reasons why people invest so much time and money in college is managable for me at this point in my life because it has been 90 percent of what I have been thinking about throughout the day (the other 10 being strict schoolwork). However, by observing others surrounding me, I have realized that my own motives for a college education differs greatly from that of many others. I see this college experience as strictly to further my career and encourage independent living, which are both equally essential for a successful future.

Many other reasons some go to college can range from a new social experience to an excuse to move away from home to the mere fact that someone made you. Although some of these reasons may be preassumed, I do know friends and acquaintances who model after these reasons. I would also assume that for those who find a college experience to be more social than academic re-evaluate their college lives hopefully by their sophomore or junior year, right when they realize this stuff is serious.

The time and money spent here can either develop a career or waste one. I am fortunate enough to have parents willing to pay the costs of college and give me a hefty role of taking responsibility for my own actions. For this matter, I realize that my parents have let me go with a head start and left me to fend for myself now. There is no safety net at the end of my college education. After junior high, one had high school to catch up. In high school, one had the option of a college education. Now, the options are limited and I feel I must make the most of this experience now in order to feel secure at the end of four years.

The one part of the description of this first year seminar that intrigued me the most was the idea that we could be, or have the bold option to be, successful beyond the four years we spend here at Drake. The class should inspire us how to make the most of the education being offered. I am still yet to find the golden answer on how to do this, but i believe it is a growing process. Maybe I respond to this blog again in 4 plus years :)

Invisible Intellectuality

The three pieces by Dweck, Perkins, and Ritchhart are very thought provoking. All the theories have valid points and can apply to all of us. We can now begin to think and act differently in all situations with Dweck's different types of knowledge, Perkins's theories on intelligence and goals, and Ritchhart's view on intellectual character. I believe that Dweck and Perkins most easily coincide together to support Ritchhart's theories. Proactive knowlege and learning goals will most likely lead to being an the best intellectual character you can be. Although, these are also the most difficult to achieve.

Intellectuality cannot be taught. It is not sufficiently explained in textbooks, professors, or even philosophers. Someone's own intellectual charcter is just that- their own. It must come through experience and learning all different aspects of the world.

From a personal standpoint, I believe that the education that I have had thus far in my life has encouraged this type of character as best as it can. I have studied topics from freshman literature to argumentation and debate to advanced calculus. It is clear that many of us have studied a broad spectrum of ideas and topics. However, I am almost certain that no one has ever seen a class on the basis of how to be a better person or a class dedicated in intellectual personalities. This is because I believe it is all a package deal.

In any class you take, the mind is always processing information. In many cases, the information is new and hard to comprehend, and the mind forces you to cope and find a way to understand. This builds character- whether it be intellectual character or not, thats for the future to decide. I learned at one point in my education how to implicitly differentiate a quadratic formula. I can't say that I could easily do that again within a few seconds as I could before or that I will ever need to after four years, but I can say that my mind is now trainied to do complicated work and stretch itself. Sure, intellectuality isn't all about mental capacity, it is about being curious as well. And I think that if we have already be trained in school to stretch our minds, then our brain is figuratively bigger and open for new information.

So, no, intellectual character is not and can not be directly taught in a classroom, or anywhere. It simply creeeps up on you without making a sound, hoping for you to take advantage of it.

Excerpts from Dweck

The material presented by Dweck was very interesting and concerning to me. After reading, I made several inferences about my learning styles. The one theory on intelligence that struck me the most was the malleable intelligence. As much as I want to say that I have acquired this learning style, I find some aspects of my intelligence in an "entity theory". I feel successful after completing anything, whether it be a one hundred page story in fine print or a page of addition and subtraction. However, I do appreciate a challenge and feel much more rewarded if it entails a vast amount of thinking.

I believe that teachers encourage more of a malleable intelligence. Education is a constant upgrade. The material gets harder, forcing you to step outside a comfort zone, thus think intellectually. At points in earlier education, however, "busy work" was assigned much more often encouraging a fixed intelligence.

As I have (hopefully) matured, I know that I am more atttracted to learning goals rather than performance goals. In an ever-changing society, there is so much to keep up with and no time to be static with information. We must constantly be acquiring intelligence just to keep up. For the mere fact that I will also be completely on my own soon, I need to be forming learning goals to suceed in a business corporated world.

Overall, I find Dweck's viewpoints to be all well researched. Her theories of intelligence are very reinforcing with various studies. However, it is difficult to pick one theory of intelligence for yourself because of the way she disregards the entity theory. In my opinion, everyone will be drawn to take the route of saying they are a product of the incremental theory, when in reality too many are the latter.