Reflection on The Debate

I am sincerely proud of myself and my team in the government debate, and I feel like I learned a lot in the process. I am not the best at thinking and speaking on my feet, but I think I am improving a lot.

The format for the debate was much more structured than those before, and I think that was helpful. And because of the large number of groups, we couldn't dwell on one point for too long, and were able to come up with more specific attacks and examples. I also think I did a much better job of preparing for the debate. It's very interesting to have to think critically about democracy, because we have all been brought up with it. It forced me to evaluate a lot of assumptions I have about this system of government.

I believe Emma was the person who said after time, each team started to really take on the government they'd been assigned to as their own. It's true in my case. After this debate, I have a firmer belief in the democratic system. If we want people to be responsible citizens in a society, we have to trust them with a responsibility!

The United States was criticized multiple times during the debate, since the country does not always live up to it's democratic ideals, and as of late, the government seems somewhat incapable of making serious decisions. The US Government does not always seem like the government my group described in the debate. There are no direct elections on the national level. Even the president is decided by the electoral college, so if you are living in a state which votes for a different candidate than you, your vote is no longer counted. You can vote for one of two parties(yes, there's more- but they never have a serious impact), and the party politics take it from there. Madison argued that the creation of factions like these is unfortunate but inevitable, and in a large, diverse country such as the US, the several opposing factions will cancel each other out, so that none is too powerful. I am not sure whether or not this is true. I see a lot of factions cancelling each other out on either side, but I feel as though it is only creating an unnecessary deadlock, and people become distracted from the most important issues by random topics which are less significant to the country as a whole. This creates space for some individuals and lobbying groups to hold a larger amount of power behind the scenes. The two-party system feeds into this, and I think it is very flawed in it's current state.

In spite of this, the United States is still a functioning, powerful country. And it is not the only example we have, or even the best example if we are talking about direct democracy. The great thing about democracy is that it can fit a wide variety of populations, because the people can create and influence it so that it represents them best.

Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche

This was an interesting debate with so many fantastic arguments from both sides. As others have stated, Nietzsche was not really opposed to Kierkegaard in the way that Kierkegaard was opposed to Hegel. I believe this made it a bit more difficult to come up with attacks and rebuttals, since both of them make similar points. Both philosophies center around the importance of the individual, and transcending societal law for a more meaningful existence, whether it be through teleological suspension of the ethical or through the process of exercising will to power and becoming an Ubermensch.

Before this class, Nietzsche was one of the only philosophers I had any interest in learning more about. It was disappointing to see that his philosophy was summed up in about a paragraph in Sophie's World! So I'm glad we chose to focus on him for the debate, instead of Hegel. I have a lot to say about both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and I'll write about them tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I can't find the conclusion I had written out for the debate. If it doesn't turn up, I'll update this post with one as close as I can remember.

Hume

Hume would find Descartes attempts to rationalize the world futile and pretentious. How can a person attempt to know more than what they themselves have experienced? Socrates himself said: "All I know is that I know nothing." Although Descartes claims that he can use his reason to realize that a puddle of wax is still wax, or that a mirage in the distance is just sensory deception, Hume does not think that is enough. Why is it wax in the first place? Can you ever really be certain that it is not something else?

This is why Hume champions empiricism. We interpret the world through our experiences and our reactions, not through the "facts" that scientists and mathematicians simply assume to be true.

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.

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.