When I was in my philosophy class, we learned about Theseus' Ship and the essence of our identity. We were asked to ponder what the essence of our identity is, and how much change we can endure and still be the same person. If someone were to be brainwashed and had all of their memories wiped, would they still be the same person? They would have the same physical body, but their entire past would be gone. Nature, or our DNA and physical body, are a big part of who we are. But nurture, how we have grown up, our memories and past experiences, drastically affect the type of people we become. The two aspects of nature and nurture are intertwined to create our identities and the essence of who we are.
We then discussed the idea of change, does everything change constantly, or is change just an illusion? According to ancient philosopher Heraclitus "Everything is flux." He believed that everything was changing all the time, and there was no stable thing in the universe. Parmenides was another ancient philosopher whose ideas opposed those of Heraclitus. He believed that the universe set and unchanging.
Classical ballet is a long lasting art form that has changed and evolved over time, but the essence of ballet has stayed the same. Ballet began in the 1500's in Italy as a royal form of dance. This form of dance then moved to France where the fundamentals were defined. Ballet then traveled to Russia, where it was developed even more in it's own, rigorous style. Eventually it even traveled to America where contemporary ballet began to develop. Today we are seeing even more change than ever before as ballet adapts to continue to be relevant with current society. Previous boundaries are being broken as choreographers challenge dancers to increase their technicality, flexibility, and stamina to create new neoclassical ballet that is faster and more acrobatic than ballet has ever been before. However, despite these changes, the essence of ballet is the same as when it began centuries ago. The ballet dancers in France in the 1500's began every class in the same way every dancer in New York City does in the 21st century, with plies and tendus. The old story ballets such as Swan Lake or Sleeping Beauty are performed just as often as Balanchine's ballet Jewels from the 1960's. Both classical ballet from the 1500's and classical ballet today are an art form where dancers express their innermost selves through the movement of their bodies.
What is Holiness?
In my philosophy class we studied the Euthyphro Dilemma in an attempt to discover the essence of holiness. Euthyphro's Dilemma at its core states that either God says something because it is holy, or something is holy because God says. If the first is true then God is irrelevant because holiness is some higher force of the universe above God. If the latter is true, then God is arbitrary. However, this dilemma can be solved if God is equal to holiness. If we say that God is the definition of holiness, then God is neither above or below holiness, but he is holiness. We were discussing if holiness can be felt apart from God. Everyone has their own god in their life, does holiness equal that god, meaning that anyone can be holy or feel holiness? If that is true then even an atheist who worships their job, money, or relationships, can experience a feeling of holiness based off of those idols. However, these different smaller gods can conflict each other, which makes them incapable of being truly holy. Yet if someone worships their job, and they get a promotion, they might feel a kind of holiness which resembles the ultimate holiness. This is possible because in some ways their smaller gods resemble the true God, which means that the small feeling of holiness they might experience from these smaller gods also resembles the true and ultimate holiness. The true essence of holiness is experiencing the presence God, meaning it can found in worship, prayer, and spending time in nature. However, it is possible to experience a fake holiness. For example, if you idolize money in your life, and come into the presence of millions of dollars, or an expensive item you might experience a feeling somewhat similar to true holiness. This feeling of "holiness" though hardly compares to what it is like when we get to experience real, ultimate holiness through God's presence. The idea of holiness is relevant in our modern society today, because no matter the time period or culture, God's presence is still a vital component in the life of any christian. How would anyone really be able to fully commit their lives to the God of universe if they could never experience His presence, or the true feeling of holiness.
The Danger of Questioning
Socrates was not afraid to question life and society, but this courage led to his death. Socrates was willing to risk the anger of others because he believed thinking deeply about life and questioning it was so important. The people of Athens didn't want to question because they didn't want to have to rethink everything they had grown up believing. They were so scared of the change that this questioning could bring, that they actually gave Socrates the death penalty for thinking deeply. They were afraid that if Socrates continued his questioning it would reveal a deep truth that would alter their lives, and they wanted to remain blissfully ignorant. Similarly, it can be dangerous to question life and beliefs in our society today. I think that everyone thinks about life and questions deeply on their own, but it can be dangerous to actually state your questions and beliefs. Whenever someone speaks up about their questions and beliefs and attempts to dig deeper than the meaningless life that society tells us is the reality, they are quickly shut down.
When we question deeply, we are making a statement that we disagree with the majority of society. We begin to step off of the "calf path" and we begin to form our own path. But whenever anyone does something different from the norm, attention is drawn to them, and people quickly try to shut them down. The world doesn't want something different because change can be difficult, and society tells us it's easier to just follow everyone else. We grow up believing that the right thing is what everyone else is doing, but in reality, deep questioning can reveal that society is wrong. Because of this, society also tries to shut down deep questioning because it doesn't want to be called out as wrong. When we truly question deeply, we will find many flaws in the way society tells us to live. But the world doesn't like that so it will try to knock you down, and scare you into compliance. It will try to use fear of danger to stop you from questioning. However, we, as a new generation, need to stand strong and get off of the calf path. We need to have the courage to be different from the norm and to question deeply and freely. We need to be brave enough to stand out from the crowd and have the attention drawn to us. If we are unwilling to take the risk of questioning, then all we will ever get from life will be the bland and meaningless dribble that society tells us life is.
Who is the Just Man?
In philosophy class we learned about what the truly just man and the truly unjust man are like. We came to the understanding that the unjust man seems like a just man, when in reality he is not. He is so sly and deceptive that he is constantly acting in the most unjust ways, but not a single person knows. In fact, society actually believes the opposite. They believe the unjust man to actually be a just man, the most just of all. He lives a life filled with glory and honor and praise because everyone believes him to be incredibly just, but in reality he is deceiving them all. We then moved on to discover what the truly just man is like. The truly just man would never receive any praise or reward for his just actions. Otherwise he might be doing just things for the glory and not because he wishes to be just. In fact, we must strip down the just man to the point where he is ridiculed and punished because everyone believes him to be unjust even though he is just. The truly just man would be tortured and beaten for unjust actions that he never committed, yet not say a word of defense against himself. He would go on letting everyone believe he was unjust, and would probably even be killed, while all the while carrying out justice in every possible way. The treatment of Jesus while he was on earth bears an uncanny resemblance to Plato's idea of the truly just man. Christ lived a perfect life, he was just in every way possible, but despite this he was mocked and beaten and crucified. Jesus never spoke a word to his accusers, and society believed him to be a wicked enough man to kill. In Isaiah 53 verse 7 it states of the Messiah, "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth" (ESV). This description of Jesus is the same as Plato's description of the just man. He will be truly just, yet no one will know, and he will not speak out against his accusers. Isaiah also states, "And they made his grave with the wicked and with the rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth" (Isaiah 53:9 ESV). This verse highlights the fact that Jesus was killed with the worst of the sinners, even though he was completely innocent. Again, this fits the exact description of the truly just man. A man who will be so hated that he is killed for injustice, while being the most just of anyone.
Censorship
In philosophy class, we discussed the idea of censorship and if it is okay for certain things to be censored. I believe that in the sense of a family, it is okay for parents to censor things for their children. There are some things that it would be inappropriate for young children to see and should be censored. However, as you get older, censorship should decrease. As parents you want to instill your beliefs onto your child, because you want what is best for your child, the censorship comes from a place of love. However, I think that once people have become fully-developed adults they should have the freedom to choose what information they will take in. In order to be fully-functioning independent individuals they need to be able to make their own choices and decide for themselves what information to take in. I also believe that it is never okay for the government to censor information. If the government can censor information, if gives it too much power. The people should have the right to access all sides every story, but if the government censors information, only the side the government wants you to see is visible. Again, if the government censors information then our freedom of speech and to express our own points of view is taken away. This is a right that everyone deserves but in this society you cannot express opinions that are being censored. I do believe that it is okay for government and authority figures to encourage some beliefs and opinions, while discouraging others, because as a government you want your citizens to turn out well. However, if things are actually hidden and forbidden then it becomes wrong. I believe that if a government has its citizens' best interest at heart, it will encourage certain beliefs over others, but ideas should not be banned completely. Actions can be banned if they cause harm to others, but people should not be silenced from sharing their own opinions. People are entitled to their own beliefs, and debate and disagreement can even be a healthy thing. Overall, parents can censor ideas for their children, but this should be decreased as the children get older. The government should never censor information so individuals still have rights and choice, but it is okay for the government to encourage certain beliefs, ideas, and information over others.
Nature of Family
In The Republic, Plato creates his society with a very different familial structure than the traditional way. In his society, the three distinct groups of people--guardians, auxiliaries, and producers--live in separate communes. The guardians all live together, eating together, sleeping together, breeding together, and raising the guardian-worthy children together. The auxiliaries and producers do the same amongst their own groups. Plato believes this to be the best familial structure to build a truly just society, however, I must disagree. This way of life encourages separation and discrimination between the three classes. Whilst they all depend on each other, this way of life will eventually lead to such extreme separation that prejudice and hatred will begin to grow towards the different classes. Also. this way of life gives the government complete and total control, and as we have seen throughout history, a government with total control will always result in an abuse of power, which is the farthest from just a society could be. If everyone lives together and raises everyone's children, nothing can be done in hiding. Any beliefs that are the slightest bit different than those of society will be crushed and ridiculed, and most likely the person who holds them will be too. Children will not be loved and nurtured the way they can be in the traditional family structure, and research has shown that this is key to child's development.
The traditional family structure allows for the children raised to feel truly cared for and loved, and for the parents to raise their child in the way that they think is best for the child. It also gives parents power over their children rather than the government directly. Also, if the three classes of society are able to intermarry and raise children who might grow up to be in a different class, it encourages diversity, as well as appreciation and respect for social classes that are not your own. However, we do have to consider that there are many times the traditional family structure falls short. Often parents are not able to raise their children well, or they walk out on their children. Often a child's own parents' love is conditional, and if the children fall short of the standards set, they will be left to fend for themselves. Other times, parents fight and divorce, leaving children feeling abandoned or unloved, or even responsible. Because the traditional family structure depends so heavily on the capabilities of the parents, it is easy to grow faulty. However, at the end of the day, I believe the traditional family structure has more chance of creating just children because the strong parental bond helps the children to develop, it encourages admiration between social classes instead of prejudice, and it hinders the government from becoming overwhelmingly powerful.
Myth of the Cave
Whilst reading Plato's Republic, I came to the Myth of the Cave. To briefly explain the story: there are prisoners chained in a dark cave facing a wall so that they cannot move or look anywhere other than the wall. There is a fire behind them, and a passage between them and the fire along which people and animals travel carrying all sorts of goods. They believe that the shadows that are cast on the wall in front of them is all that exists of reality. One day, one of the prisoners is released and brought up, out of the cave. He is first blinded by the light and can only look at the shadows, but slowly his vision will adjust and he will even be able to look into the sun. He later goes back to the cave to tell the other prisoners of what the true world is like, and free them also. However, when he returns to the cave he is once again blinded, but this time by the darkness. The other prisoners recognize his inability to see in the cave and think that going outside has harmed him. He attempts to tell them what it's like outside the cave, and to free them, but they violently refuse to listen to the truth he is trying to share with him.
Me at the zoo covered up to try to to prevent a bad reaction
In my own life there was a time when I used to live in a cave of somesort. I have a very rare condition called erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP), which is basically an extreme sensitivity to sunlight. When I was little and first started having reactions, no one knew what was wrong with me. I would go outside for the day, playing in the sun, and when I would come inside I would tell my parents that I felt like I was on fire. We tried everything to stop the pain, from medicine to sleeping with my hand in buckets of ice, but nothing helped. We went to many different doctors and got tested for many different things, but no one knew what it was. It was like we were in a dark cave and we weren't anywhere close to figuring out the reality of my situation. Some doctors, like the other prisoners, would even refuse to believe we were having a physical reaction, and thought it was only happening in my mind. One day I was playing at a friend's house and my mom was telling her about my condition. She told my mom about a documentary she had seen on TV about kids who reacted to being in the sunlight. My mom and I were doubtful that she actually knew anything about what I had, we had seen so many doctors and no one had any idea what was wrong. But my friend's mom sent us a link about it, and my mom reluctantly began to read about this condition called EPP, like the man being dragged out of the cave into the real world. When she read the patient stories, she was moved to tears. At first we could barely believe it to be true, like the man could only look at shadows and reflections. We later got tested and the results came back positive. We finally had a diagnosis! We were able to fully live in the truth of what was really going on, like how the prisoner could eventually look into the sun. Even now, when I tell some people, they don't fully understand or believe that my condition is real. Sometimes they will even tell me, "oh, I think my neighbor has that!" which is couldn't be true because it is so rare. I have only met 2 people with my condition in my life, and one was over zoom. But now I am able to live fully in the reality and truth of my situation. I have been dragged out of my cave and into the light of a diagnosis.
The Triangle
Friendship
Our friends are some of the most important people in our lives, but how is it that friendships are formed, and exactly what purpose do they serve? Aristotle believed that there are three ultimate forms of friendship, and each fits in with a corner of Plato's triangle. The first type of friendship is pleasure-based. You are only friends with that person because it makes you happy in that moment, but as your pleasures quickly change so do your friendships. Pleasure-based friendships are short and often only benefit one person. This friendship is similar to that of the producers, whose virtue of moderation will begin to seek soley after pleasures if not reigned in by wisdom. The second form of friendship is utility. In this case, you are only friends with someone as long as they are helping you in some way. This form of friendship is self-centered, and it can only work if one person being used and receiving nothing in return. This friendship is more forced than it is real, because no one truly wants to be friends with someone if they are only being used. In the triangle, this friendship is like the auxiliaries, whose weakness is their will to power. If left to do as they please, they overpower everything they want, and use it as they want, giving nothing in return.
The third kind of friendship is what we would call a true friendship, one of mutual kindness. In this form of friendship, both people give and receive, and it is built upon kindness, respect, and care for one another. This form of friendship is like the guardians on the triangle, as it "rules" over the other two forms. Without mutual kindness, a friendship isn't even really a friendship but rather just an acquaintance or a pawn. All three corners of friendship can be important, because why be friends with someone who doesn't bring you pleasure, or someone who never does anything for you. Pleasure and utility do have value, however mutual kindness is needed to reign in these two so that they do not become overpowering and destroy the friendship. Pleasure is important but it should be mutual. Getting something out of the friendship is important but it should be mutual. Without mutual kindness a friendship cannot be true, for in a friendship you must first give in order to receive.
Ethical Code
Lying and deceiving: I will/will NOT…
I will not knowingly lie or deceive other people
I will strive to be truthful in every situation, even if is embarrassing, difficult, or inconvenient to me
Cheating is never okay in any circumstance, but I will always offer to help others if they don’t understand something on an assignment or test
I will be willing to confront people with difficult truths if they are necessary for the person’s wellbeing
I will keep the secrets of others to protect their privacy when things are told to me in confidence
Lying and deceiving are wrong except:
When I will unnecessarily hurt the person’s feelings (Ex: telling someone their outfit is ugly)
I will share the secrets of others if keeping it will cause the person harm, but I will be careful with whom I share this information, and only tell it to those necessary to help the person
I will lie in a situation if telling the truth will cause harm to others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stealing: I will/will NOT…
I will not take things that do not belong to me
I will not take credit for things I did not do or make
I will not waste or steal the time of others
I will not cheat other people out of money, materials, or time
Stealing is wrong except:
When it will save someone’s life, or prevent someone from undeserved harm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harming others: I will/will NOT…
Cause direct intentional harm to other people
Use my words to hurt the feelings of others
I will not start or spread rumors, or speak about others behind their back
Harming others is wrong except:
When in self-defense or the defense of others
Skepticism & Epicureanism
When asked if I identify more as a cynic, skeptic, stoic, or epicurean, I would have to say somewhere in between skepticism and epicureanism. While I admire the cynic's courage to disregard societal norms, I don't think that I actually live a life much like theirs. In my own philosophical thinking, I closely identify with the skeptics and their eagerness to question everything. Personally, I like to look at different ideas from every angle possible, but almost always come to the conclusion that there isn't really a way to know what is right and what is wrong. I believe that the most important idea to a belief is that it's true, and not subjectively. However, I also believe it is impossible to be fully confident that your beliefs are actually true. There is no way to prove that anything is fully concrete and undeniable, so it makes sense to doubt everything. I also appreciate the stoic's value on wisdom and perseverance, and I believe it is very important to stand strong against difficult circumstances. However, unlike the stoics, duty is not my everything, and I prefer to take the peaceful route to wisdom and virtue. For this reason, I think I live with many epicurean beliefs. I try to see the bright side in every situation and see the best in every person. I often try to push away my pain and act as though everything is perfectly fine, when in reality the only way to deal with a problem is to face it. I always like to know both sides of every argument, and often end up with beliefs somewhere in the middle. I don't like to upset other people and I often wish everyone could just get along. I think that this side of me is similar to the Epicurean's tendencies to pursue pleasure and peace and avoid painful situations.
I think that parts of the beliefs of all four of these groups can be built into our faith as followers of Jesus. Part of having faith in Christ is being able to believe in Him while still struggling through doubt. Apologetics is giving a reason for why we believe what we believe, and as Christians we need to be able to have reasons and evidence for our beliefs, otherwise what is the point of believing them. We have enough pieces of the picture to be able to say that we believe this to be true, but there will always be pieces missing. There is room for doubt and questioning because we will never have all of the answers, however there are enough pieces to believe that Christianity works. Secondly, Epicurean values of living simply and seeing the bright side can also apply to our walk with God. Jesus calls us away from the things of the world that will distract us and push us away from him. By living simple lives we can turn our focus to God alone and let Him be the center of our lives. Also, Jesus calls us to love everyone, even our enemies, and when we see the best in other people and love them despite times they might have hurt us we are able to act towards them as Jesus would. We are able to love others and live lives that promote peace, because love and peace are from God.