Nagel’s View on Life’s Meaning Shown Throughout the Semester

Nagel points out that we can’t mediate a meaning to life because we cannot balance out the struggle between subjective and objective. Through class we have constantly seen this struggle with every unit.

First there was the despite over knowledge and whether we can really know anything. This comes down to the fact that everything we do is in literal definition a subjective experience, and additionally that means we cannot see outside that own view to know if we are being fooled, if we are alone, if there is another different reality, or if our lives have a different value than we thought. The quest and claim that real knowledge exists is an objective claim, that there is something solid and concrete that we all will see the same.

Then there was identity. Here it came down to what makes someone who they are, is it is a soul or conscious, or their psychological properties alone, or their body and its state. We want ourselves and our existence to last forever, that is the idea of eternal life and as a result we believe that our subjective will endure past our objective self, the body. However at the same we want to look at the facts, what might be physical is what might be all there is. Objectively we all only see and realize death, so how we can affirm there is anything after without objective proof?

Next comes free will and determinism. Free will is based on the subjective point of view that we decide everything we do. However objectively from outside our points of views we know that there are things outside of our control that influence our choices. Things that happen to us before we can remember shape our personality, recent previous events and circumstances shape our judgment. Ultimately previous experience and genetics influence everything we do to a heavy degree, especially previous experience. And if there is only one past that can only shape our future in one way, then how is our future not inevitable? Determinism clings to the idea that it is inevitable.

Finally there was morality which came down to the struggle between Utilitarianism and Kantianism, both of which are on completely opposite ends of the subjective vs. objective spectrum. Kantianism is a completely subjective application to moral ethics because it worries about whether the person is moral from their own point of view, regardless of if the outcome or result benefits the greater good or society. Then the objective approach is taken by utilitarianism. It is says that actions must taken that benefits the objective world in the best way possible. It says that as long as the beneficial outcome is achieved we, it’s okay to use question and sometimes unmoral methods. It also says the one must make sacrifices for the greater good.

So it has been shown that objectivity and subjectivity go head in philosophy all the time. These issues are only basic ones and as the view of the world gets more complicated and complex these two will continue to collide. Hopefully one day there will be a solution. When that day comes we will have the meaning to life.

Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism

One thing about utilitarianism is that it has a split between two variations. Utilitarianism is a method of applying moral ethics in which you chose the outcome that has the maximized benefit, regardless of means. This means that it is okay to use somewhat question means at any time if it will generate a result that betters the greater good. However as pointed out in class, almost everyone can argue that their situation will better others if they are pushed a necessity of doing so. As a result it would make a chaotic mass of exceptions where everyone found their own reasons to ignore rules. Traffic lights for instance would be one of the areas where this would fail. As a result of this critique arising, a newer form of utilitarianism was conceived. Rule Utilitarianism is when a rule is set that obeys the standards of utilitarianism but then it is followed and adhered to regardless of circumstance. I found this split to be interesting because it comes down to whether you believe in absolute justice or lenient justice. If we keep letting one person slide the past the rules every time, then this world falls into chaos. How do we know if what are doing is or isn’t fair and just? In what way must we go about judging ourselves and others? Where is this world going?

Lonesome Stranger

One of the critiques of utilitarianism that we talked about in class I found very interesting. It was called the lonesome stranger. Here’s the idea of it. You are a sheriff in a town. There is criminal that remains on the loose that the town really wants captured. They are going to riot if he is not captured and persecuted by the law. So far there have been no leads whatsoever and the town is going into unrest. A lone stranger wanders into town. He has no family or other acquaintance. The question is whether you are morally obligated to frame the stranger as the criminal in order to ensure the town doesn’t riot. According to act utilitarianism this is morally okay because in this situation framing the stranger would create the greatest benefit. However if you are going by rule utilitarianism then it would unjust to because it would go against the rules of justice which are meant to benefit society. Honesty it’s hard to say which would be better to do. Many agree it is okay to tell a lie to safe someone but not at the expense of another’s life. At the same things like this have been done many times before right under our noses. People will often use the term justice to vindicate harsh and unnecessary action. How will we know what is right and wrong when the people at the top of society decide what justice is? Are they helping us and how many have they unjustly sacrificed to do so? To me this dilemma is truly not only something that challenges but also disturbs our views on morality and justice.

Aristotle on Ethics

I found many parts of Aristotle’s views on morality to be unique and also very profound. One of the main things I liked about it was how Aristotle said that all things we inherently working towards the greater good. He said everything’s morality is fulfilled as long whenever is in question is fulfilling its natural role. For example a carpenter would be moral is he was good at building with wood. A doctor would be moral if he could efficiently heal the sick. Aristotle goes onto to say that humankind’s moral duty and role is to function as rationally beings. I think that most justice should be based off rationality. One thing that I found as a contradiction in Aristotle’s moral views was that he said it took years to develop moral conscious and only white high class Greek males would be able to reach that platform, not women, not foreigners, and not servants. Yet if these people are incapable of developing a moral sense than should they even be judged according to moral views. Moral ethics when they are be applied should be applied to all of society. No one should be able to be above or below the law, or else they are outside the law in some way and the system is corrupt or ineffective. I do like how he divided certain things up such as rationality, spiritually, freedom, health, class, and wealth to determine the hierarchy of how we should organize our priorities to be moral rational beings. With the exception of how his moral guidelines only include a certain group of people, I think for being one of the earliest philosophers and scientists, Aristotle did a good job of laying the ground work for later views on morality by focusing on the most important trait of humankind: rationality.

Critique on Elliminative Materialism

Elliminative Materialism is the idea we should replace our casual and more "dumbed down" language that we use to describe everyday occurences with a strictly reductionist language. An example would be instead of saying that you are seeing a certain color you would say that your eyes are looking at the specific patterns of pigmentation and light waves that are associated with that color. It is describing things strictly from a physical and objective standpoint. Terms like emotions and desires would be seemed obsolete. The critique for this would be in the nature of reductism itself, which is the idea that all things can be reduced to terms describing the most basic aspect of their phenomenon. The problem is that when reducing things, new and more complicated fields of knowledge are going to keep emerging and as this happens the reductive language of elliminative materialism would keep getting more and more complicated until it becomes senseless and impractical to use.

The Self.

The self has been something that has been a major issue all year especially during our unit on identity. It's all comes down to the question of who am I. The fact that my body is trillions of atoms that come together to sustain something bigger, which ultimately leads them towards the creation of a greater the state of mind I call me, Matt DiMarco. Not only that though, they all interact and integrate in ways to sustain me. Why? What makes life into life? They don't know I exist and don't really gain anything special for sustaining me. Those atoms don't even know they themselves exist. Yet I, Matt DiMarco, some mysterious result of those atoms cooperating in one of the most mysterious ways that this universe has ever seen, know they exist. Why is that? What happens when you give a point of view to something that shouldn't have one? The answer: me. But who am I really?

Who Am I?

Supposedly there are three answers. You are either your thoughts, your body, or a soul. These are more formally known as psychological criterion, body criterion, or single soul hypothesis. The issue arises in one occurrence. The Ship of Theseus is a wooden boat each day gets a plank replaced, but after all its planks are replaced is it still the same ship? Another example arises in teleportation. Your body is disintegrated inside a teleporter after its information is saved and sent and then the information is almost instantly sent to somewhere else to rebuild you exactly as you were. Yet the question is did you die, is a twin created, will it remember your/its past, and will that be you?

I don't get why they arise as such opposite answers. I feel confident to say I am body, its thoughts, and a soul somehow attached. The soul is unique idea because it lives through death. And according to the bodily criterion even if there was a soul that wouldn't be me. And I think of my psychological states as part of my body. But the atoms of my body don't know about me or the thoughts I have. Yet if I rebuilt my exact brain and memory into a new body "I" would have two bodies according to psychological criterion. They aren't so different. And I can only say I am all three if I hope and believe my soul is something physical. I hope and believe my soul is physical but not made of matter but of energy. Since matter can take the form of life then I don't see why energy can't, since matter is technically a form of energy as said by Einstein. And I hope and believe this unique undiscovered energy exists with the body and remains after it dies and goes on to fulfill other roles in the universe, possibly eventually to work its way to other become new bodies for new things. Perhaps human bodies are merely USB ports for these souls.

Who Am I? I am my body, thoughts, and soul all at once!