Last Connection Blog

 Lately our topic in Philosophy with the absence of Mr. Wickersham has been “designer children” and practically the meaning of life. When speaking on “designer children” we (as a class) specified this as picking the traits of your child which is something that doesn't sit quite well with me. In my class blog I spoke about how one of the most beautiful things to experience in life is watching a child, that you gave birth to, grow up and develop their own personality and identity for themselves. When you pick the traits of your child, it's almost as if you're not necessarily giving them a chance to be them; even if they don't know who exactly they are yet. Plus, as someone mentioned in class, a parent can go through all this trouble to make their child look a certain way physically...only for that child to dye their hair or wear contacts in life, now “designing your child” has become meaningless and cost the parent some serious coins. From the lecture we watched, the speaker mentioned that it's in human nature to want to be in control of everything, thus that's more so why this topic even came to be. Now does this mean that when people are in control of their life or the things that happen in their life that they have more of a purpose or a more meaningful life? In Examined Life, one speaker explained that our life has no meaning until we find it while another said we have meaning in life but it's bigger than us. Now, naturally I agree with both because another person can't judge the worth of someone’s life. For example, if I wear the same necklace every day because my mom gave it to me, and that's why it's meaningful to me, who's to tell me that my necklace is meaningless? I create my own joy and define what makes my life meaningful--not someone else. On the flip side, I am religious and I do believe that God has a plan for our lives which is why I understand that maybe the meaning He has planned for my life is “complex” because it's greater than I am.

Last Reflection Blog

 This book is just nuts. First off, let's thank Hilde for asking and thinking about all the right questions such as how in the world her father put together this book. As long as this book is, it must've taken him at least 6 months to write it. But shouldn't he have had to write this novel possibly a year prior to Hilde's birthday? Hypothetically speaking of course. While Hilde is asking all the right questions, Sophie’s mom isn't asking any at all. Her daughter gives her a book titled Sophie’s World and she reads a little and isn't phased by this?? What?! That's all types of weird and I'd be past freaking out if that were my child. Anywho, I don't like the way Alberto told everyone that they didn't exist. Like that's not the type of thing you just drop of someone; that's heavy stuff. Telling someone that they're completely made up and apart of someone's conscious is practically unheard of and I don't think Alberto went about telling people correctly. To be honest, I don't think Alberto should've told them at all. Now I get that technically Alberto didn't say any of this and that it's the major making him say these things, but deep down I want to believe that Alberto and Sophie are real. Lastly, it crazy how Sophie’s World ends inside of Sophie's World. Sophie and Alberto’s lives just vanish after the party...yet there's still pages in the book and we’re still reading the novel but it's no longer about Sophie, it's about Hilde now.

Reflection Blog #6

One of the trippiest parts, as if the novel hasn't been messing with my mind before, is when Alberto hands Sophie a copy of Sophie’s World off the shelf. It's like a painter painting a painting of that painting painting; a tad bit confusing but once you broaden the view, a little better to understand. Anywho, this part is kind of funny because it's almost as if we’re collectively coming to a realization that maybe we’re just a figment of the major’s imagination. Doesn't this amaze you? Characters that supposedly don't exist, who are now aware of their “non existence”, have just picked up a novel--which happens to be the same novel we’re currently reading about their life--that's about themselves, the major, and Hilde; pure chaos right? Even Hilde begins to question a few things before coming to a semi conclusion that Sophie and Alberto are just characters in the novel. Another piece I find comical is the non-related characters that continue to pop up in the novel. For example, in the Darwin chapter, Noah- from the classical Bible story with the Ark- appears for a brief moment to give Sophie a picture of all the animals he saved. ¡Next section! Another trippy part in the novel is this mischievous plan that Sophie and Alberto are cooking up. I’M EXCITED TO SEE HOW THINGS PLAY OUT!! Ever since Alberto mentioned it a few chapters ago, I've been looking forward to it. I think it's cute how Sophie is trying to distract the major...even though he's the one writing the novel. So technically is this where the major’s mind is just dozing off and it's his unconscious mind writing this piece of the novel?

Connection Blog #6

We were talking about Freud earlier this week and the whole “Freudian slips of the tongue” concept. It’s funny because I’ve never heard it called that before, but I completely understand the concept; saying how you really feel, but not meaning to say it out loud. But after what we talked about today, Utilitarianism, I feel like these go hand in hand..maybe. Utilitarianism is about picking the choice that does the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So in a sense, would me telling the truth be the better thing to do at all times? What I mean is, if I had a Freudian slip of the tongue and tell my friend that her dress isn't cute and she doesn't look good (maybe not that bluntly) then I’m doing good to her and possibly further on in her life. Let’s say later that night she had a date, and she was looking a mess, thus the guy doesn't give her a second date. Then she gets upset and finds out that he's dating someone else. In turn, she gets up and goes on a killing spree out of spite. Now, all of this would have never happened if I would have told her from the get-go that her outfit wasn't that cute. That example is a bit extreme, but I feel Utilitarianism is a bit too black and white; either you're doing the right thing or you aren't. What confuses me is who decides what you do is morally good or not? An action that you commit could feel like it's the correct thing to do in your mind, but on the flip side may seem like the wrong choice for society to others. I feel like you can never win with Utilitarianism.

Connection #5

With this whole concept of the lives’ of Alberto and Sophie being practically ran by the major made me revisit my thoughts of mankind not really existing…
I do believe in God, so yes I believe that He writes our destiny but I've always wondered if we were simply, I don't know, a snow globe on an alien’s shelf somewhere. What if our entire existence is a lie? This reminds me of when we spoke on Kierkegaard and how one of the most important concepts to him was existing. I wonder how would he feel and answer to questions like mine about questioning mankind’s existence. Now we also talked about Kant, and how he believed that time and space are innate concepts. Is this true? I would like to think so because if we think about it, we technically created time..I'm not so sure about space. If we think about it, humans have a different time setup than animals, right? We have the whole 365 days a year, 52 weeks a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, etc. I feel as though animals just live from sunrise to sunset without getting all detailed like. We run on a strict, day by day lifestyle that we constructed with time--which seems to have a strong grip on us. Even from the very instance of birth, we see and feel the effects of time, which is why I feel they are innate. Time is a quality/quantity that we created for ourselves, and ever since it has trickled down generations and has formed a hold on humanity.

Relegation #5

This book is getting surreal. The major is really playing games with Alberto and Sophie! First I like how the entire book is set up; finding out that Sophie and Alberto may not exist and that their entire “story” or “life” has been written in this book for Hilde. Not to mention that Alberto knows this and repeatedly tells Sophie that it's the major controlling everything. On a side note, I don't know why I found it amusing when these fictional characters, such as Alice, the rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, Aladdin, and Scrooge showed up in the novel. It's almost like a blast from the past simply because here are these characters in the wrong story. I like what they represent though. For example, the red and blue bottles represent pantheism and individualism. It's a cute little symbol I can refer to when it comes to remembering the two. Then when Aladdin shows up, which shows romantic irony, and informs both Sophie and Alberto that the major is in control. I feel as though Sophie didn't fully believe this concept until she was leaving Alberto’s place and met Winnie the Pooh who then gave her a letter in a looking glass. The message was from the major, of course, which touched on how Kant was practically the starter of the League of Nations. What made this an eye opener for Sophie was the fact that she and Alberto had just finished speaking on Kant, and now this teddy bear appears out of nowhere speaking about not only Kant, but Sophie and Alberto as well.

Blog Connection #4

Recently, we've been talking about Rationalists and Empiricists, and a tad bit about Kant. At this point I’ve learned that empiricists believe in the senses while rationalists believe in reason. I've actually been trying to figure out where I fall on that spectrum, but in the course of doing that, I've been asking friends and family a simple question: “Do you trust your senses?”. Typically, they respond with a yes, and then I ask them or give them different scenarios in which their senses have mislead them such as smelling vanilla extract and believing it to taste good, only to find out that it's quite disgusting. Or I’ll ask them about a time where they thought they saw or heard something, but it turns out that they were way off, such as maybe thinking a satellite was a star, or thinking a stranger was someone they knew, or maybe even thinking they heard their phone vibrate or ding! only to realize they were wrong. My follow up question then was, “Do you/Can you still trust your senses even after they've tricked or deceived you once? Who's to say it hasn't happened multiple times?” similar to the way one of the philosophers we learned about did...was it Socrates? I stumbled a few people until it got to my mom--of course. She flipped the script and asked me a question instead. She asked that if it wasn't for my senses what else would I used to believe what I believe or help aid my experiences. I replied with that reason would be the only other way, but again, she threw me a curveball and asked me to explain. But before I could, she said questioned whether my reasoning was correct simply because everyone's reasoning for certain vary greatly, so what makes my reasoning right versus hers? Who knew my mom was a philosopher??? Anyways, this left me stumped all over again because she had a point. If rationalists base their beliefs off of reasoning, technically wouldn't there always be “another side” to look at?