Parmenides

Parmenides would argue that there are certain universal and unchanging truths within our own existence and the world around us. We are born, we die, and the process repeats itself. Throughout our lives, we share the same needs, emotions and thought processes. We can relate to any unknown person, knowing that they too have experienced excitement, fear, hunger, thirst, exhaustion and joy.

He would have also asserted that change is not present in the physical world (outside of our own existence) either. Although Parmenides would've have rejected a linear world view, I do not believe he would have completely agreed with a cyclical view either. He argued that the world is static, therefore it can not expand and contrast, it must be fixed into one concrete position. Newton's laws support this argument. They have remained the same since the world's formation, and guide the actions of every object that exists or has existed.

Introverted Philosophy

"One of the reasons I get along so well with Sartre is because he said "Hell is other people".

-My dad right before back-to-school night started.

Debate on Change

What I love most about rivers is
you can't step in the same river twice.
The water's always changing,
always flowing.

Today we discussed Heraclitus and Parmenides in our first debate. It was hectic! The format was structured and fast-paced, and it seemed that most of us weren't completely comfortable with it. My heart was pounding the entire time, even though I only spent a total of thirty seconds talking in front of the class. Despite the fact that the debate felt confusing and unorganized, I thought it was a great experience. I've never had to think on my feet in front of a group of people in such an environment before. Near the end, I wanted the opportunity to get up and try again.

As for the content of the debate itself, I was on team Heraclitus. Like the titular character of one of my favorite historically innacurate animated films, I find that Heraclitus's views coincide more with my own. How can a person remain the same having experienced something new and different? Each interaction I make affects who I am. I can never revert to a previous moment of being. Parmenides might rebut that although I may accumulate new thoughts and experiences, I still won't wake up a butterfly tomorrow. To me, this doesn't negate the fact that I've been changed as an individual.

Change is an intriguing and confusing topic within our culture. I think of the 2008 presidential election, when the word symbolized freedom, and improvement for many people. The concept of moving rapidly forward to something new and better was exciting. But others firmly believe that any more change in our government would lead to further decay, and that we must attempt to revert back to it's original state. We see the same idea of progression vs. regression repeated in other aspects of our society and lives. We want to move forward in our lives and community, without drifting too far from what makes us who we are.

Fear

On Thursday, we were asked to think of a time we experienced extreme paranoia. I couldn't come up with anything at first. When I was little, I was never scared of closets, white vans, or dark alleyways. They just never registered as something I should worry about.

But I did get scared a lot. Of absolutely nothing. When we were getting into line for recess, my heart would start pounding and I'd feel a hollowness in my stomach. I would be afraid to move, sure that something was about to go terribly wrong. And I got this random fear multiple times a week, so I knew that nothing was going to happen. No matter how many times I assured myself that everything was fine, I couldn't overcome the physical feeling of fear. For me, it was too strong a feeling for rationalization.

Descartes championed rationalism, while Hume believed in sensory experience. Neither philosophy seems perfectly accurate for me. All the rationalization couldn't make my emotions any less affecting, while accepting my fear never made it seem more real. All I could ever think was: This doesn't make any sense!

Sophie's World

Sophie’s World, by Jostein Gaarder, tells the history of Western Philosophy from the perspective of 15 year olds Sophie and Hilde. Although some may find this unimpressive, Gaarder sees this as the perfect way to tell his story. At the age of 15, both Sophie and Hilde are beginning to grow up, but still young, curious, and excited about the world, in contrast with adults, who have become too comfortable with their surroundings. The book aims to show its audience that philosophy is for everyone, so long as we have not been caught up in the rabbit’s fur.In the first chapter, we are introduced to Sophie Amundsen, a fairly typical teenage girl, questioning her existence and later, her world. She is intrigued by the mysterious letters she receives, which ask: “Who are you?”, and “Where does the world come from?” Although they should be relevant and interesting to every one of us, these essential questions are ignored everyday by the majority of people. Sophie’s reaction is, however, is of immediate curiosity and excitement. This contrasts strongly with typical stereotypes about teenage girls- that they are silly, shallow, and unknowledgeable, so they should not be taken seriously. Sophie is able to admit to herself that she is unknowledgeable about the answers to the questions, which only strengthens her curiosity and will to learn more.

Alberto’s first lesson for Sophie contains the metaphor of the rabbit fur, which becomes an important theme throughout the book. Alberto asks Sophie: “Is there nothing that interests us all? Is there northing that connects everyone- no matter who they are or where they live in the world?” It’s a powerful question, which shows just how unifying and central philosophy is to every one of our lives. In spite of it, we almost never really think about philosophical questions. Alberto states: “Although philosophical questions concern us all, we do not all become philosophers.” Almost every one of us becomes buried deep in the rabbit’s fur; too caught up in everyday affairs to notice how strange and wonderful our world is. The first two chapters can serve as Gaarder’s plea to the readers to think about what is truly important. We all have innate curiosity and should be thinking about big questions, although day-to-day affairs can be distracting.

The first person Gaarder shows who is caught up in the rabbit’s fur is Sophie’s mother. When Sophie asks her mom about the world and about philosophy, she is disturbed and thinks that her daughter might be on drugs. Sophie’s mom immediately brushes off every one of Sophie’s questions, as weird and uninteresting. This illustrates the idea that by the time most people reach adulthood, they take the world for granted, and lose their sense of wonder. Sophie’s mom exemplifies everything we could become if we do not question ourselves and our surroundings, and the jaded, uninspired attitudes we encounter daily.

However, Gaarder has a hopeful outcome near the end. Sophie’s mother shows great interest in meeting the philosopher, and possibly learning more. And although she doesn’t quite understand why Sophie is leaving her, she is proud of her daughter and wants what is best for her. We do not see anymore of Sophie’s mom within the book, but Alberto assures Sophie that they can come back to visit anytime. At the end of the novel, Sophie and Alberto are independent within their world, able to make their own choices and continue to learn more about how their existence. Hilde and Albert have a similar discussion about their universe. All the characters are questioning what is around them, while becoming more connected to their world.

By using the characters Sophie and Hilde, Gaarder is able to show just how relevant philosophy is to all of our lives, regardless of our position in the world. He hopes to demonstrate why we should all feel encouraged to think philosophically, and avoid being caught in the rabbit’s fur, as so many are. Every one of us has the same potential to question and to think critically and abstractly. Every one of us experiences the inexplicable forces that make our reality, our world, and ourselves.

Silence and Patience

We've been practicing meditation a lot. Each time I've found it relaxing and liberating. In complete silence, free of all distractions, just able to be. I get so exhausted with day-to-day affairs. I cherish almost every moment where I have no obligations to doing anything, to think anything, to talk to anyone.

For some reason, it wasn't like that last Friday.

For the first few minutes, I was fumbling to find a relaxing place, both physically and mentally. My mind kept drifting off on random tangents. Songs I should put in my iPod, funny stories I should tell my friends during General's Period, posts I should reblog on Tumblr, homework due over a week ago that I should really start (this post included!). I was maybe able to find 3-5 minutes of peace, when my mind became littered with trivialities again.

After awhile, it got worse. It wasn't just that I couldn't focus, but that I was frustrated, bored, and impatient. I didn't know how long we'd all been sitting here, and how much longer was left. What's the point of this anyways? Humans weren't meant to sit around in silence, isolated from the world around them. We're meant to act!

Honestly, I had a hard time coming to terms with the purpose of sitting in silence in a dark room, not thinking of anything. I guess it's okay that I couldn't attain a silent mind. But it's the things I was thinking about that disappointed me. There's nothing wrong with the thought that I should finish my homework and stop procrastinating, or that I should talk to my friends when I see them and be more social. But in that 18 minutes of freedom, I didn't come to any great understandings. I was just stuck in my day-to-day routine, the one I complain about all the time.

I wonder if I would've achieved a silent mind, or at least thought about something more interesting and important to me, had this gone on longer. Or would I have just become more impatient?

Free Reign, Free Will

For most of class today, we were without a teacher.

And everything went fairly well. The discussion went on as planned and everyone was in a good mood.

One of the most interesting questions to come up was the concept of free will. Does it exist, and do we have it? Emma asked jokingly if we had sat down to discuss Sophie's World out of our own will, or if Mr.Summers somehow had control of the whole thing? Funnily enough, Mr.Summers appeared at the door about half a minute later.

I don't know if there's any way to tell whether or not we have free will. It might not even matter. What's important is that we are happy with our decisions in life. Even with the freedom of choice, we are pressured everyday to make the "proper" one. We are told that there's a specific way to live well, one that works for everyone.

Go to school. Get good grades. Join extracurriculars and win awards and leadership positions. Make lots of friends who are interesting and diverse, but still like you. Get into a good college and get a good job.

Do whatever, it doesn't matter as long as you're happy.

At age 17, I feel that I'm getting these messages more than ever. We're getting to the point where we'll soon have to start making serious decisions about our direction in life. As excited as I am for the independence that comes with college, it's confusing. I hear everywhere that I should do what makes me happy, but the same people that say this think that there is only one way to be happy.

I have the perceived free will to stop typing right now, to leave and hide somewhere in the mountains for the rest of my life, free from societal pressures. But I don't see it happening that way. As much as I want to be independent, I want more than anything to fit in.