Blog 3: Aristotle

As it turns out, the theory that i brought up in class today (that there are three main types of friendship) IS indeed Aristotle's. He explains that the three possible types of friendship are that of utility, that of pleasure, and that of the good. Friendship of utility occurs when each party stands to gain something from the other. Neither is truly a "friend" in modern terms because he sees the other as an object rather than a human being. The basis of this relationship is more bussiness oriented. When the motivation of self-gain dissolves, so does the "friendship." A friendship of pleasure, which is slightly more respectable/desirable in Aristotle's view, is one in which each party simply enjoys the company of the other. In this type of friendship, the people involved may enjoy a common hobby or activity. This may seem substantial, but such friendships will dissolve like those of utility when or if the commonality no longer exists. The final, most respectable, and most true form of friendship is that of the good. In a friendship of the good, the movtives are entirely pure, and, thus, the relationship has longevity. Each friend is true and honestly cares for the other person on a deeper level of character. Relating back to Skyla's question in class, I think that when Aristotle said that "friendship is only possible with a few people," he was referring to TRUE friendship, that is, friendship of the good.

Q: What do you think of Aristotle's theory of the three types of friendship? Do you think it's true? Can you identify yourself as having one or more of these friendships?

In response to Josh...

In response to Joshua Nitti's question: "What does the world need for it to better itself a philosopher-king or a sage?"

I think that, though both individuals have their merits, the world would benefit more greatly from a sage. Confucius' sages just seem to be all around good people. They value trustworthiness, selflessness, and respect. After all, their one goal in life is to become completely benevolent toward their fellow human beings in order to attain ultimate social harmony. They live by the Golden Rule and are governed by sympathy and empathy rather than selfishness and apathy. If humans today were to endeavor to embody such creatures, I think many of the world's problems would either be mitigated or flat out eradicated. People murder because they lack benevolence; they cheat and lie and steal because they lack benevolence. If we were to adopt the Way of the Sages, we would undoubtedly become more peaceful, agreeable, and ethical people, thus correcting our flaws and bettering our society.
The one problem I see with relying on sages and the Decree of Heaven to better our world is that a sage is generally not a forceful being. That is to say, when slapped, I believe he would rather turn the other cheek than retaliate. I think our recalcitrant world requires more of a firm, authoratative grip to straighten its warped qualities.
Q.) If you were to choose to follow either path (that of the sage or that of the philosopher king), which would you choose? Why?

Blog 2: Plato

One facet of Plato's teachings with which I strongly disagree is his proposal to "exclude poets and other artists from his ideal society, on the grounds that they appeal to the lower, non-rational parts of our nature" (p.87). One could argue that art impels individual, creative thought, and that individual thought may lead to dissent. However, one could equally as strongly argue that art and creative expression are vital in the process of psychological development. It allows people to think and imagine, and to process the world around them. Art of all forms has consistently been a ubiquitous element throughout every culture in existence. Visual, musical, and literary art are a means of communicating the feelings of the soul, and for some people, art may be their only means of communication. To eliminate this creativity would stifle multitudes of people and destroy so much potential beauty. Sticking a cork in an individual’s fountain of creativity would become incredibly detrimental to that individual’s creative/psychological development. Then again, the text directly states that Plato didn't really give a damn about the individual, so much as he did about the greater society as a whole.

Q: My question only indirectly relates to Plato, but it is a genuine question I have... Humans are naturally sexual beings, so why is our natural "sexual desire" so often shunned and seen as a reprehensible action? Is this disapproval restricted to promiscuity or does it encompass all sexual desire?

In response to Nicole...

In response to Nicole Braden's question: "If the point of one persons life is their calling, then what does the rest of humanity live for, when they have no such vocation?"
The question you posed is something that I've often thought of before. My boyfriend is a musician, and I sometimes like to think of myself as an artist. We've often talked about our personal obligations to pursue our passions/talents. I think that for everyone who doesn’t yet have a "calling" or "vocation" as you put it, they should take it upon themselves to find one, to find something that calls them. They should expose themselves to a myriad of activities or experiences in hopes of finding something that seems worthwhile to them. That said, I think this whole process relies entirely upon that individual's desire to find a "vocation." If he is comfortable simply sitting in front of a TV, "letting it think for him," well, then I frankly don't know what he lives for besides the aversion to or fear of death. I suppose he lives for numerous small joys rather than one great passion. Perhaps he lives for the changing of the seasons, or hot showers, or whatever it may be that brings him joy. I’ve always kind of thought that life and existence are incredibly random, and we should just try to enjoy it for the short time we’re here.

Q.) What do you believe is your calling or vocation?

Blog 1: Confucius

One aspect of Confucianism that we didn't mention in class is the importance of family values. I think the importance of a solid upbringing is something we can all argree upon regardless of our personal views on Confucianism itself. Page 17 of the text describes that the way in which one acts toward "people outside one's family should be an extension of the love one feels for members of one's own family." By fostering this brotherly love within a family and allowing it to spill into society, we are working towards achieving the keystone of Confucianism and the Decree of Heaven which is, of course, benevolence. Every human's first classroom is his own household, and every teacher his father/mother. Thus, the cultivation of the self begins within the home. According to Confucius, it is the father's (or in a more modern, less sexist world, the mother's as well) duty to instill a strong moral backbone into his children. He is the central focus of his childrens' education and self-betterment. This theory of patriarchal leadership also spills over into the political world. Confucius maintains that, like the father of a family, "the emperor of the state must rule by moral example" (p.17). I, like Confucius, believe that this ideology may lead us closer to "moral perfection" (p.15) and social harmony.

Q: In our modern day world, do you think it is possible for a true sage, as defined by the teachings of Confucius, to exist?