Meaning of Life
What is physis? What is techne? Make sure to illustrate each response with an example.
Physis: the process of production in nature (the blossom on a plant) or in art the process of production by human beings Techne: technology and the satisfaction revolution, expediting and the maximum yield, how we start to see the world, the standing reserve, enframing, the danger
What point is Wolf trying to make with the example of the Blob? Imagine that someone objects that Wolf is wrong because a Blob might be extremely invested in their pursuits. Does Wolf have an adequate reply to this objection? Why or why not?
"The blob (pg6)" a person that sits on the couch watching TV and will not even change the channel because they do not even care what they are watching. The life that the blob is living is meaningless because they have no desires in anything, not even a desire to change the channel to something they like. If someone says that Wolf is wrong because maybe the person is just lazy and really values sitting watching TV all day. Wolf would argue by saying they are not "meaningless" because they are watching TV all day, they are meaningless because the TV watching is not meaningful at all to them. -Wolf suggests 4 criteria that we have in mind when we speak of a "meaningful life" 1. That we be actively engaged and highly interested in our pursuits 2. That we regard our projects as being valuable for the long haul 3. That we are to some degree successful in our pursuits 4. emotionally satisfying A life full of activity, but silly and useless activity. (The idle rich fighting of boredom, moving from one amusement to another.) A corporate executive who's live revolves around money. Their dominant activities seem pointless.
Nagel claims that we take our lives and pursuits very seriously and that we engage in them (rather than others) because we think that they are important. What are some examples to illustrate this claim? If Nagel is right about this, is Wolf also right to say that it is important to human beings that their pursuits actually matter? Why or why not?
"the collision between the seriousness with which we take our lives and the perpetual possibility of regarding everything about which we are serious as arbitrary (718)" -my pursuits are important(719/720) I choose them over others at least in part because they are important - A human being is more valuable than a rock -A beautiful object is more valuable than a neutral or ugly one -An object that is the product of a lot of labor has more value than something that comes easy -It would be bad if the earth exploded -Burning a person alive it bad Nagel thinks that we take our pursuits in life very seriously because they are very important to us. However we have absolutely no proof that they are important we just make them important.
What is it to view things sub-specie aeternitatis? When we take this perspective, what reason is there to believe that our lives and pursuits are significant?
"under the aspect of eternity"
Mr. X aspires to be a public yodeler. He loves to be out in public and to create music for the people who walk by. In the end he is seen as a radical eccentric in his local community, and he makes the decision to abandon his yodeling interest and to opt for a more conventional existence. Consider how three of the following philosophers would make sense of Mr. X's situation and how they would assess his decision. The philosophers are Sartre, Socrates, Wolf, Heidegger, Epictetus, and Nagel.
-Sarte- emphasizes on freedom, freedom is unlimited, moderate view- freedom is really important to us, though there are going to be obstacles to our freedom. We need to find space to ourselves that exercises our freedom. Doing something we want to do. -Epictetus- Torn in 2 directions- best life where you're not disappointed ever, get rid of desires. Other aspect, more plausible, as human beings that's not a sustainable life for us, we should be stoic about emotions and passions we should pursue those things and realize sometimes well fail, instead of getting upset, realize that's just part of the game. Hard to be a stoic. -Wolf- emphasize that the kind of activities humans find most fulfilling are activities they find themselves dedicated to through the long haul(look in notebook). We also really hope our projects do seem just valuable to us but objectively valuable to us, struggle for us to prove projects are valuable.
Carr argues that we are in danger of becoming skimmers in all aspects of our lives. What evidence does he cite for his view? Do you think he is overstating things? Why or why not?
-technology is affecting our ability to live a meaningful life -we now have the internet, we skim books, ALWAYS looking for immediate satisfaction, complicated historical issues, assembly line - Living in a world where we can constantly have immediate satisfaction has taken a toll on our lives because we always want what we want right away, we automatically think that things come quickly, we are losing all of our patience. -We do not even have time to sit down and read a whole book, we are skimming it just to find the answers and never really sit down to enjoy it
Are there other enframers, do you think? Are these more powerful than technology? Why or why not?
...
What is the difference between the correct and the true? How is freedom threatened by technology, according to Heidegger? Do you think that technology threatens freedom, or enhances it? Why?
...
We considered three additional ways that a person might benefit from having second-order desires and secondorder volitions: locating desires whose satisfaction the person finds more fulfilling; integrating one's desires into a cohesive order and pruning desires that are extraneous; and making one's desires consistent with one's larger ethical commitments. Illustrate each of these with an example.
1. Locating desires whose satisfaction the person finds more fulfilling: wanting to be the kind of person that is always happy 2. Integrating one's desires into a cohesive order and pruning desires that are extraneous: wanting to be the kind of person who wants to give undivided attention to their family 3. Making one's desires consistent with one's larger ethical commitments: Batman
Wolf argues that we have more opportunities for a meaningful existence if we are tiny specks in the universe, rather than if we are the center of attention around which everything revolves. What is her reasoning? Do you think that she is right? Why or why not?
As human beings we want to live an objective and meaningful life. We want to have reason because to us the universe and things around us also have meaning. We need to realize that we are one of MANY meaningful things in the universe. There are many things in the universe that are extremely important. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things. We may think that our lives are the single most important things but the reality of it is that we are not, there are plenty of other people and things like the sun that have so much more importance then us! -Helping others
Epictetus argues that we should be stoic in our dealings with others. What is his argument?
Dignity in resisting situations such that it is more gratifying to resist and to keep resisting even if we don't get what we want. If something happens to someone that you care about you should not care. That is just the way life is. We have control over our emotions and we control our essence so we can make the choice whether or not to get upset over something. We have complete control over our emotions. So if my mom dies I should not get upset or cry I have the power not to. Grieving is a process that does not need to happen at all, it is a choice that we make
What is Enframing? What is a world? What is Heidegger's worry about our ability to uncover worlds?
Enframing: Enframing, as a challenging-forth into ordering, sends into a way of revealing. Enframing is an ordaining of destining, as is every way of revealing. Bringing-forth, poiesis, is also a destining in this sense" (330). Enframing is "destining", from which "the essence of all history is determined" (329). Enframing is the essence of modern technology, for Heidegger, because he roots modern technology in techne: it is a means for sourcing true forms and ideas that exist before the figures we perceive. Heidegger uses the term "enframing" to explain the way humans, as users of modern technology, have come to relate to (and literally "frame") the world. In describing how the windmill differs from the type of revealing that characterizes modern technology, Heidegger explains: "But [do the the properties of contemporary technologies] not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind's blowing. But the windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it." With the windmill, the wind turns the turbines, the wind-energy instantaneously powers the turbines. At no point is the wind's energy manipulated or stored up as a different kind of energy. The windmill only transfers motion, it "reveals" wind energy, but does not commandeer nature's energy or store it for future use What is a world?** Enframing: " the threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology (28)" -Changing how we view the world Ex: go into museum and you see a painting with a frame but you focus on the painting because that is what is important. When emerced in technology we are so use to immediate satisfaction, we want everything to be done more quickly
What is a first-order desire? What is a second-order desire? Make sure to illustrate each response with an example.
First order desire: things that you want to do. A wants to X (x=action) Ex: go to sleep, eat food, make friends, get pleasure, be successful Second order desire: when you want to want to do something. A wants to Y (y= first order desire) Ex: I want to want to eat healthy, I want to want to study for this test, I want to want to exercise *First order and Second order desires can agree with each other. I want to want to teach, I also want to want to teach
What is a first-order volition? What is a second-order volition? Make sure to illustrate each response with an example.
First-order volition: are the first order desires that result in action; they are strongest. These lead to decision and action. Ex: loving NASCAR just to love it, being a cub's fan just to be it Second-order volition: want a certain will, care about your will. A desire that is not very strong inside of us (if at all) but we wish it was stronger so that it would motivate us and lead us to act Ex: Wanting to want to do communicate service because you love it
Frankfurt argues that we are not just interested in freedom of action, but freedom of will. What is the difference between these? Do you think that Frankfurt is right that there is something in favor of having second-order desires and second-order volitions? Why or why not?
Freedom of action (15): the ability to do what one wants to do, if we just have first order desires we have freedom of action Freedom of desire: where you have some control over which desires you have, freedom over what motivates them - we might benefit from second order desires by taking the desires that we already have and weaving them more tightly into a life (a world or coherent identity), locating desires whose satisfaction would fulfill us more, checking to see that our desires square with our deeper commitments
Epictetus argues that we would be a lot happier if we had honest conceptions of things - for example, our favorite jug. What is his reasoning?
Happiness can be achieved through intimate relationships. Epictetus says, "If you kiss your child or wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset." (Epictetus s3) He is telling us to not get attached overly attached to parts of life that can be taken away. If we are not attached to our dog, then we will not be overwhelmed when the dog dies. If a family member dies, I believe a person should be upset. Epictetus looks at the situation as a part of life so the people should not dwell on the loss. I was able to relate to this when my Grandfather was very ill and we understood that we did not have much longer to live. We remembered him for the great life he led and when it was his time to go, coping with his death was much easier. I still saw him as my Grandfather and not just a human being, but being realistic about the situation made his passing much easier on everyone. This idea follows his opinion about death. Epictetus claims,Death is nothing dreadful, but instead the judgment of death that it is dreadful- that is dreadful. So when we are thwarted or upset or distressed, let us never blame someone else but rather ourselves, that is, our own judgments. (Epictetus s14) He is correct. His death was a blessing because it was a relief from his pain. "You are foolish if you want your children and your wife and your friends to life forever, since you want things to be up to you that are not up to you, and things to be yours that are not yours," says Epictetus. (Epictetus s14) Epictetus is again telling us that we can make strong relationships, but we cannot get over attached. We also cannot waste our time on things we cannot control because it is a waste of time and energy. Over the summer, I took a macroeconomics course that was very important for my admission into the Tippie College of Business. After taking the final, I checked to see if the score was posted multiple times a day for three weeks until it was finally posted. I wasted so much energy on something that I did not have any control of and I should have just waited for the grades to come in the mail, instead of nervously checking the grade every night. To find happiness, people must approach situations with realistic expectations and understand what they can and cannot control.
Nagel thinks that there is a sense in which life is in fact absurd. What is this sense? What is the relevance of the analogy to skepticism about the external world?
He thinks that we live a very absurd life. We take things very seriously and when they do not go our way we think it is the biggest deal in the world. For example you could date someone your entire life and then purpose to them and they could break up with you on the spot in Paris. All of our actions do not really mean anything. External Skepticism tells us that we are wrong in everything that we see and know. You can never really know if there is a table or chair in front of you. There are very good arguments against the external world that we live in. Even though there are a lot of arguments we still go on living as if there is an external world and we never question it. Real worry is that none of it matters at all. If we took a step back and took a good look at our lives we would not find any meaning in it. We have so much reason to doubt the external world that we live in. Even though we have every right to doubt it we never do. People go on taking their lives very seriously.
Nagel recommends a life of irony and humility. Why does he think this sort of life is appropriate? Do you agree? Why or why not?
He thinks that we should live life with irony and humility. He is saying to not take anything that you do in life too seriously. For example you are getting knighted from the queen and all of the sudden your pants fall down. Most people would think this is a big deal and be terrified but Nagel would say to just live life ironically and do not take anything that happens too seriously. He thinks that this is appropriate because we take life so seriously even though we have no proof that we need to take life seriously. So he says even though we do not have proof to still go on living life seriously but live it with a bit of irony in everything that you do. This way you will never feel so embarrassed or broken-hearted if something does not work out. You will never sweat the small stuff, just always live life saying it is not a big deal. I agree with him to some extent. I think as human beings we have the standard set for us in life that we need to always be professional and serious about our projects in life. I like to be serious when I do things that I care about. It is hard to take things light-heartedly when something that you care about goes wrong. It may also be a problem because we will start to become less passionate and invested in our own determinant. However, I think that in life we could all loosen up a bit because most of the things that go wrong in life are not the end of the world. We all live such a serious life and I think it is important to remember that everything will be okay in the end so try to do things with a smile and if something goes wrong say oh well that is not the end of the world.
What are the four aspects of causality, according to Heidegger? Make sure to illustrate each with an example.
Heidegger's Four Aspects of Causality: 1. material (e.g. silver) 2. formal (e.g. the idea of a chalice) 3. efficient (e.g. the silversmith) 4. final (e.g. to hold a drink) In the four causes we find instrumentality (314). Efficiens or the occasion is the most complex of the four because it connects with responsibility and also combines both poiesis and physis (which lead toward enframing?).
Epictetus argues that we should be stoic in our dealings with ourselves. What is his argument?
Marathon runner, death in a family, "You are foolish if you want your children and your wife and your friends to life forever, since you want things to be up to you that are not up to you, and things to be yours that are not yours," Death is nothing dreadful, but instead the judgment of death that it is dreadful- that is dreadful. So when we are thwarted or upset or distressed, let us never blame someone else but rather ourselves, that is, our own judgments. (Epictetus s14) Have no attachment at all (15) We tend to despise what is not up to us (19, 8) Only focus on the body, be a philosopher and do not be physically engaged with other people because it causes emotions and takes focus away from your own reflection We get distracted by our own fears and are not able to live in the now Must be fully present in situations or else it will not work out, but have no other distractions
Epictetus alternates between saying that we should conform our desires to the way that things happen and saying that we should intervene in the world and act on our desires and interests, but always act with the grain. Which do you think is the more plausible view, and why?
More plausible to comform, but more fufilling if you follow your desires. You must be disciplines, keep a strict diet, stay away from cakes, train according to strict routine at a fixed time in heat and in cold, not drink cold water, not drink wine when you feel like it, and in general you must have turned yourself over to your trainer as to your doctor, and then in contest 'dig in', sometimes dislocate your ankle, swallow a lot of sand, sometimes be whipped, and, after all that, lose. Think about that and then undertake training if you want to. Otherwise you will be behaving the way children do, who plays wrestlers one time, gladiators another time; blow trumpets another time, then act a play. (Epictetus s29) His philosophy reminds me of Michael Jordan in ESPN's 30 for 30 films. The film follows Jordan as he quits basketball to play professional baseball. Jordan's dedication prevailed. He went from being the king of the NBA to a minor league baseball scrub overnight and worked his way through his failures. The coach said he was always the first guy to practice because he could not hit a curveball and that was what prevented him from succeeding. Before making the decision to play baseball, Jordan understood how hard it was going to be and when he started, he was awful. He was making simple fielding errors and could not hit. He eventually, after hour upon hour of practicing he succeeded. If a person makes a commitment, they must honor that commitment and do their best. In pursuing happiness, people must approach situations with realistic expectations and understand what they can and cannot control. For example, if you love being a good parent to your kids than that is what you should put all of your effort in to. Being a good parent is a talent that you have and it is important to put everything you have into that. But it something like getting into a car crash happens, don't get to emotional about it because your family is safe and everything is okay. So I think the more you work with the grain and not against it is the way to live. Every once in a while something meaningless will bother you and maybe get you upset but we are only human. We have emotions and sometimes they are just hard to control.
Nagel presents three common reasons for thinking that our lives and pursuits do not matter. What are these reasons, and why does Nagel think that they are not compelling?
Nothing that we do right now will matter in a million years (716): if nothing matters right now then it does not matter in the moment, and what goes on in a million years will not matter at all either. (Negal does not like this idea) 1. We are not eternal (717): If our finite lives are pointless and insignificant an eternal version would be even more so 2. Life "is an elaborate journey leading no where" (717): we do things for the sake of other things but then at some point our justification stops and our activities have no further purpose. There is no proof that we have meaning behind anything that we do in life. No reason for something being important to use besides that fact that we say it is. 3. We cannot prove that we are real or actually here: We could all be in a matrix machine just like in the movie total recall. We have no proof that the life we are living is real or if we are just in a dream. People never question it thought, they just keep living life as if it is all very real
What is a wanton? What would Frankfurt say is the problem with the wanton athlete? What would he say is the problem with the wanton video-game fanatic? What would he say is the problem with the wanton philosopher?
Somebody who has a lot of desires, some desires that might be very strong. Even though this person has first order desires he does not care about the desirability. -No Desirability of his desires, No care about his will -Give me a desire ant desire (I do not care what it is) and I will do it just to be satisfied -When they satisfy that desire they are fully satisfied -Have no reflection, they never step back and ask is this really important to me? Ex: baseball fan, goes to every Cubs games and knows everything about the Cubs and says they love them. But if they step back and really ask themselves do they deeply care about this desire the answer would be well no not really.
Wolf argues that a second condition that we have in mind when we identify a life as meaningful is that the person (whose life it is) be immersed in projects that they take to be of long-term value. How is such a life supposed to be more fulfilling than a life that jumps from one pursuit to the next?
Wolf says to look for the long-term projects, because they will contain more value. A person going from one project to the next is not finding any real value in what they are doing because it is immersed in so many things. Being focused on one project and putting your whole body and soul into it brings more focus and meaning because you truly feel fulfilled from that project because you have put all of your time and effort. ex: get a new pair of shoes and then shortly put them aside and get another new pair of shoes and do the same thing. This shows that we do not really care about them it is just going from thing to thing never living a life of meaning of fulfillment
Do you think that Heidegger is right that human relationships are becoming more shallow as a result of the forces of technology? Why or why not?
Yes, I do think that human relationships are taking a huge toll due to technology. Many people are losing touch on a face-to-face level. We are losing the ability to talk with one another in person and deal with problems face-to-face. Instead many people are using technology to deal with problems. We also feel like we do not have enough time to sit down and have a cup of coffee with a friend. Everyone is living a high paced life full of satisfaction that they forget what is important. We are starting to feel like we do not even have enough time to have a phone all with a person or go to dinner with them. People are staying connected through email and text messaging leaving no room for the real contact. It is starting to make us poor communicators and will only get worse. I completely agree with Heidegger that something needs to change, technology is a good thing but not at the level that it is starting to be used. It is able to get out of hand and cut us all of from each other completely just like in the movie Walle.
