Here is the thing. This colloquium I think was one of the most
\ninteresting points in my life since moving up to New York. It taught me
\ntwo major things about my life. The first is that no matter how much
\nPhilosophy I studied in College, it was simply a guide into much more
\nrocky and torrential terrain then I could ever have perceived. The
\nsecond is that I really enjoy that terrain.<\/p>\n
I remember vaguely when during several classes when Professor’s made off
\nhand remarks about how “unimportant” and “technical” certain words could
\nbe. For instance, Dr. Korcz opened the quagmire called identity and
\nleft it open saying that, “identity theory can get really technical and
\ncomplex so lets not concern ourselves with it right now”. during my
\nmetaphysics class. Now you might notice that “identity” comes into the
\ntitle of colloquium. It is important to understand that, because in the
\nend that was a key point to the whole discussion. <\/p>\n
Now a second thing you must understand is that I will not be relaying
\nhis whole speech here. I’m simply organizing my own thoughts about the
\nwhole discussion. I did not understand a lot of the verbiage. The
\ndiscussion began with an introduction that listed his main concerns. <\/p>\n
What does it mean to be a liberal?
\n– He quotes J.S.Mill in answering this. According to Mill the argument
\nis similar as to what follows.
\nP1 There was a point in the past in which I was wrong. (unequivocal
\nfact. No argument available)
\nP2 It could be the cast that I am currently wrong in any belief I hold.
\nC1 Therefore I should approach any contrary opinion with the notion that
\nthey could be conceived correct at some point.<\/p>\n
What is identity?
\n– Now in this example he quotes someone who I’m unfamiliar with (Aier
\nperhaps? his accent confused the name for me) to describe commitments
\nand how they are setup as defining identity. This is where it gets
\nvague and confusing. I.E. No clear cut premises-conclusion structure.
\nA person has commitments depending on the identity they choose to bind
\nthemselves with. If you identify with the Muslim faith, then you follow
\nthe Koran and other such tenements. He went on to say that you often
\nadhere to commitments in the present more strongly if in the future you
\nsee your self losing those commitments. In other words, A Muslim sees
\nhis culture dying out and therefore finds himself adhering to
\ncommitments more fanatically then before. This is how a person’s moral
\nidentity is supposed to be structured. This is also how it was given in
\nthe lecture. ……. I feel like I’ve left a lot out.<\/p>\n
Another portion of the lecture was spent discussing relations of
\ncommitments. This was a big chunk of the discussion and also a major
\npoint in his argument. His argument is that there seem to be relations
\nbetween ideas that are not simply mechanical. (exact terms vary I did
\nnot take notes because I left my pencil at home……… sigh.)<\/p>\n
Set one:
\n– To do philosophy
\n– To eat vitamins after every meal<\/p>\n
Set two:
\n– To do philosophy
\n– To do all in one’s ability to please one’s father. (in this example to
\ndo philosophy is not contrary nor counter to pleasing one’s father)<\/p>\n
According to him, the second set has a relationship with each other that
\ncannot be explained mechanically. He argues that it is not the case
\nthat to do one is to also do two, nor is it the case to do in
\naccomplishing one, two is fulfilled. They are separate ideas not
\ncausally chained in any fashion. He goes on to point out that there
\nstill seems to be a relationship between the two ideas. He steps back
\nand says that this simple example can be extrapolated to commitments
\nacross the knowledge area and that these relationships make up the
\nidentities of the individual involved. <\/p>\n
His conclusion is that the liberalist argument fails when you take into
\naccount the myth of Odysseus (may be incorrect with my knowledge of
\nGrecian myths, I want to say he called the guy Sisyphus but I know it
\nisn’t that myth). When Odysseus lashes himself to the mast and tells
\nhis shipmates to not let him free no matter what he will say in the
\nfuture, there is an understanding that Odysseus future self will have
\ncommitments that are different then what his commitments are now. Now
\nlet us assume that in the future while lashed to the ship, another ship
\nappears and attempts to capture the ship. If Odysseus argues in the
\nfuture that they should unlash him to fight off the invading ship, then
\nhe would be obeying by a commitment of his previous self and yet the
\ncommitment would be evaluated using a new means of evaluation.<\/p>\n
My overall understanding of this is seriously rocky, and I don’t think I
\nshould post this. I am assuming that this contradiction between
\nprevious selves and future selves makes the argument for liberalism
\nflawed and not as inductive as it should be. Hmm… let me think about
\nthis some more. A major comment through the discourse is that Mill’s
\nsetup is to create an argument that is deductive and all inclusive and
\nnot reliant upon evaluative stances. In other words, his argument is as
\nbase and core to understanding as all other arguments should be. This
\nis also the appeal. The contents within his argument cannot be disputed
\nas far as I can tell, it is just the conclusion that raises concern.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here is the thing. This colloquium I think was one of the most interesting points in my life since moving up to New York. It taught me two major things about my life. The first is that no matter how much Philosophy I studied in College, it was simply a guide into much more rocky […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-entries"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}