Divergent and the class discussion on Thursday

Yesterday, after enjoying the sunshine and delicious barbecue in Cameron Park, my friends and I decided to watch a movie to end our days. We chose Divergent, which is rating 7.5 on IMDb, and we thought it would be a better choice than Rio 2 (well, guys thought so, I was not).  Well, I really enjoy the love story between the handsome hero and heroine. However, it is not a really good movie in my view. I really should watch Rio 2, animation could always make me feel excited.

The reason why I put this movie together with our class discussion on Thursday is that I though it reflect the relationship between the moral and intellect. First of all, I don't believe, a person could be morally good after just taking a couple of class in the moral fields. Because, at least, taking class for some students is not a sake of self-flourishing, instead, is sake of finishing the requirement of their degrees.  For the students who taking the classes for the sake of graduation,  it is really hard for us to expect that they would be more morally at the end of the semester. And the for the students who taking the classes for the sake of self-flourishing, maybe we could expect they would be morally mature, but only expect.

Education could only be a way to improve the morality in one, but would nor determine one's morality. And at the same time, even though education could help the "students" establish and improve their morality, the effect of the higher education such as universities and college would be really weak. On the other hand, the environment where one grew up, and the family education and primary education one received since one was young would be have essential influence on one's moral development.

Most of the "evil" person in the movie or in the reality, they were doing the "evil" things based on their believes. Well, I mean the really evil person, not the "bad" people.  The really "evil" people choose to do the "right" things they believed to be right. In the movie, the women who choose to maintain the world system that divided people into five main factions, and to kill the people who is not fit in to the system, divergent, which means they would destroy the system, would be seen as just do what she believed is right. She said couple of times in the movie, "Human nature is not good for keeping peace". Well, maybe that is true, but she is on the track that prohibiting all the human natures, which is not moral good in the common sense. Why would they think in this way? Why would they control one group of people to kill another group of people, just because thy believed that the last group of people would destroy the existing system, which seems not that much reasonable but in their mind perfect? This woman is in the group of "wise". They know everything, and they have the most advantaged technology. Her intellect could say in a really high level, and she know what she is doing, and also she believed what she is doing is totally right. The moral wrong action is based on her wrong belief.

However, for most of the bad people, we could say, they just not totally understanding what is good and what is wrong. Yes,  they know, but they don't understand. For this group of people, education may work on they, but not the education we received from the universities and classes, but the education from the society. That why I thought Baylor could get the credits for this point. First of all, in this Christianity environment, most of us are expecting to behave good and seek for the goods of each other. And we have to attend chapels. We are expected to attend mission trips and mission services. Baylor provides the students various opportunities to learn from the societies. But, at the same time, this is just an expectation.

Moral education should be an obligation of the family, school, and society. And I believed the family environment and the education in primary and middle school should account more. It is really hard for the higher education to help re-establish one's moralities. However, it can do some improvement based on one's existing moralities.

After finish reading Friendship for the first time

ps: This should be a blog post three weeks ago, I just find out today that  I kept it in my draft.......

According to Aristotle, “friendship” is not similar to the modern meaning; the meaning of friendship actually has a more widen meaning in his work. There are three kinds of friendship, one is the friendship based on the “useful”, once the function of one party disappeared, the friendship would dissolve. One is the friendship for pleasure, which the feelings play the role of deriver. The third one, which Aristotle is highly honored, is the friendship between the good people who are alike in their virtue and good in themselves. The third friendship is a complete one.

The discussion of what we seek in the friendship impressed me a lot. The difference between these three friendships is that people in the fulfilled one are mutual benefits and the love between them is without qualification and they love each other due to the shared virtues and who they are. And then, he discussed the difference between the goodwill and the friendship, and held the view that the distance would not dissolve the friendship without qualification (I think it refer to the complete friendship or the friendship he said is “fullest sense”.), but it would break the activity. I always ignore the most basic, however, the most essential things in a relationship: communicate frequently and accompany with each other. These are the characteristics in one friendship, whatever the species they are. People need to be loved and love in a relationship, and they are pursuing the pleasure and the happiness.

Two different view towards pleasure in book X

At the beginning of Book V, Aristotle provides us two opposing view on pleasure. 

Eudox presents the people who hold a view that "Any good thing is more worthy of choice when one good is added to it than its own." Thus, he believes that happiness is the most worthy of choice and  with it the good of other virtues increased.On the contrary,  people represented by Plato think that "pleasure is not the good". Later on, Aristotle compare hearth with happiness. Different what people would consider about heath, the criteria of happiness are different from people to people. For example, business person might see "wealthy" as a standard of happiness; students would regard high GPA as a measurement of happiness(some of my friends do). Also, as what Aristotle discusses in Chapter 4, pleasure is not a process. We can easily feel happy and suddenly in a down mood. There is no start and stop point foe happiness. Meanwhile, Aristotle says pleasure is not a replenishment.[I am quite confused here, as I keep reading, I realized in some tense, Aristotle do think pleasure is a replenishment....] And as he states at the end of Book V, happiness is the end of human affair.

Something interesting I found in book V: the foreign pleasure.

 According to Chapter 5 "Foreign pleasure produce much the same result as pain, since they ruin the activity, though not in the same way". But to what reason people have to do the thing that make them painful. Well, in my own understanding, this foreign pleasure is a pleasure in a long run, but a  pain in  a short run. For me writing is the last thing I would do during the whole day, so I just finished 10 out of 18 blogs now. Writing is always my short whether in english or in Chinese. I am a friend who has the same problem as I have, but she is a good writer now. Practice makes perfect, and at the same time practice needs efforts and usually being lots of pains especially at the beginning.  Same to work out.  The process of work out is painful, but in the end it would help me keep fit and healthy. 

Maybe that would be the reason why even though the foreign pleasure is painful, some people would still not avoid it. 

Learning philosophy is like mountain climbing

About three years ago, when I read sophie's world for the first time, I was attracted by the magical and wonderful philosophy wonderland. Since then I step on a road that do not allow me to turn back. These days, when I finally realized that I will be a university senior after two months, I begin to feel anxious about the future.Which major should I choose to apply for a graduate school? What a kind of person should I be? Will I continue to study philosophy in next three or seven years? Those questions are bothering me, and make me feel really hopeless. Then I recalled what we had discussed few weeks ago in class, about following our soul and about the mountain climbing.

China has a totally different high education system to the USA. It is even harder for a student to choose a major in college than to get the admission from a school. As once the major was decided, it nearly means that this major would follow a student in the rest of four years or his/her whole life. So, people usually think the major one chooses would determine one's job , and it is the keystone for the success.The decision I made really shocked lots of my friends and high school teachers. They keep asking me the same question in the past two years: "what could you do with a philosophy major?". To be honest, I really have no idea about what could I do when I get the philosophy diploma. But I do know, I am normal and had a clear head when I did the decision. I want to be a better person, at least a better person in my own eyes.

However, would my life be even easier if I choose to study another major? The truth is maybe not. Everybody is a philosopher in their own life, we have our own philosophy to deal with the issues we meet everyday. Even though, a philosophy major may not equal to wealth, but by studying it, I do be much more wealthy in how to live my life. Who knows what would happen in the next decade. Maybe,I would be the lucky girl who owning a philosophy major but earn millions of dollars! Well, just like the mountain climbing, the climber would never know what the top would look like, until the reach the pitch. I would never know what philosophy could bring to me, until the day comes. Anyway, I love learning it, that is enough.

Aristotle BOOK II: developing a virtue of character vs developing a skill

The developing a virtue of character similar to developing a skill or art in the following ways:

First, we acquire the virtue and the knowledge of the skill by using it, but before we used them, we have already had them. For example, before we practice playing tennis, the coach told us how to use the rackets and how to hit the ball. While we practise, we gradually apply the theory we learnt from the coach to the exercise. Finally, we became skilled tennis players. It is the same with the virtue. We know what courage is before we do the courage actions. Meantime, when we do the courageous actions, our courage increased and we became courageous people. On the contrary, if we do not practice in a correct way, slightly we may become bad tennis players or the discourage people.

Second, akin to developing a skill or art, the origin and means of the development of each virtue are the same as those of its corruption, but the activities that flow from them will consist of the same things. Because of the correct and scientific practice strategy, he became an outstanding tennis player. As a consequence, he could be most able to practice most efficiently. Another example is the temperate. We became temperate owing to our abstaining from pleasure. As we became temperate, we are most able to abstain from pleasure.

However, these two processes have differences. Of developing a virtue, agents don't have to own the virtue's worth in them, but just do the actions. Nonetheless, for developing a skill, the players have to absorb all the knowledge in their own mind. For instance, we may describe a person as temperate because he does temperate actions. Nevertheless, we can't describe as a tennis player just because he was playing tennis. Besides, two more things are required and playing important roles in developing a virtue, one is the agent acts in a certain state from rational choice and rational choice of the cautions for their own sake; one is the certain state from a firm and unshakeable character. Those two characteristics are absent in developing a skill.

Five Important Things

I think the five important things that Socrates learned from Diotima are:

1)Love is neither beauty nor good. Love is something between good and bad, beauty and ugly.

2) As love is neither beauty nor good, he is not a god. Instead, Love is a great spirit that between mortal and god. Love is a massager that commute between mortals and gods. 

3) Love is the son of Poros and Penia. On the one hand, he always living with Need, but on the other hand, he is eager to beauty and good. Also, in nature he is neither mortal, nor immortal. He is between ignorance and wisdom, so he is one that love wisdom.  

4) Love is wanting to possess the good forever. What love wants is the reproduction and birth to beauty. Because the reproduction and birth could give the mortal immortality. 

5)Love is a process that begin in a lover's youth. A lover should correctly learn and experienced "beauty" in a following sequences:first, he should love a certain body and beget beautiful idea there; second, he should realize that all the bodies are presented the same and one form of beauty; third, he should become a lover of all beautiful bodies, and gradually think body is not an essential thing. After that, he would think that a human soul is much more beautiful than the bodies. Then, he will gaze the beauty of activities and laws, and no longer think beautiful bodies are important. Finally, he would see the beauty of knowledge and be looking mainly not at beauty in a single example.And he will catch the beauty in its nature. The last kind of love is immortal and would be beautiful to everyone.  

(It said that this is the scene when Alcibides was entering the room)

Do you think Alcibides  understood any of  these lessons?

I thought at least he understood. In Socrates' speech, we can know that Socrate did not agree love is a desire of beauty. But in the formal  five speeches, every speaker in some degrees thinks that love is a desire. Alcibiades, I am not sure weather he is a lover or a be loved in the relationship with Socrates, do not want to talk about love in front of Socrates. At least, it seems that he was jealous about the fact that Socrates sit on the same blank with Agathon. And, it also seems that, Socrates was not a satisfied lover or be loved. So, what Alcibides praised is Socrates, and provided lots of evidences to say Scroates was really act as wha he said.

Extra credit;   Is  Alcibiades actually drunk or only pretending to be? 
I think Alcbiades only was only pretending to be drunk.
1)In his words, he directly show his love to Socrates. He was trying to us "drunk" to say all these words, because people always said that after drunk, one would tell the truth.
2)And he was keeping stress that he was drunk. I don't think a drunk person would admit he was drunk so easily.
3)Near the end of his speech, he could still remember what he said at the beginning, and want to add more into it. And finally, he was trying to pursuit Agaton keep a distance from Socrates, in case to be betried. In this way, he was trying to say that even though Socrates seems to be a "expert" in love, he is not a good lover, which echo his beginning.His speech is quite logically,and not like a drunked speaker would say. 

 

My favorite dialogue of Plato-----Symposium

I have two reasons to say Symposium is my favorite. One is those five speeches are talking about "Love". Another is this dialogue companioned with me during my whole freshman year, well actually what companied me is the storied about the human nature. To make myself be more familiar with other four speeches, I decided to write outlines for them.(The five speeches that we have already talked about on Thursday.)

Praedrus, whose names means "shining forth", believed that love is an ancient god. He thought that virtues are from the "shame". And he thought that only by love could human being gain happiness. Everyone would feel more shame to do "bad" things in front of their lover. And a person would only sacrifice himself or herself for lover. However, he seems to believe everything is good.

Pausanias, his name means "to stop, to pause". He put love into two different categories, one is heavenly love which only involves men, and common love which involved women. For him, only heavenly love is deserved in pursuit. It is more to the soul. However, common love is more like a physical staff. He also believed that love itself is neither good or evil. All the judgement of love is based on the action, whether it happens in a good way or evil one. He also thought that love should produce virtues.

Eryximachus, the doctor, whose name means "belch fighter", and who really treat Aristopharves's belch during the speeches, believed love is everywhere. He agreed with Pausanis that two different kinds of love are existed on the world. Also, he uses the opposite body conditions, health and sick, to illustrate that.He believed love is something to make everything in harmony, which seems that he thought love is a kind of force that runs everything.

Aristophanes, whose name is "the appearance of the best", he told us a story about the human nature. His speech is my favorite one in this dialogue. Due to the human nature we have, Aristophanes believed that love is the pursuit of wholeness and the complete. We used to be part of the whole human that have two heads, four hands and legs, and seem to be round. Love is the process to find our perfect another part. So love involved lack, what we are looking for is the thing we lost before.

Agathon, whose name means "the good", is the party giver and just won the victory in his first tragedy. He gave the his understanding of the characteristic of love. He held a view that love is the youngest and "soft". Love only lives in the softest part of human, the heart. And also love owns the good and beauty in himself.

Although all of the speakers have limitation due to their own perspective, but the next speech in some kinds improved the former one. That's the reason why Socrates kept silence during the whole speech. In the end, he began to challenge Agathon's speech. In fact, he challenged all five speeches at the same time.