Philosophy 101: Beliefs and Values

← →

For the 25th- read Wolf and Schopenhauer

March 23, 2009 · 15 Comments

The reading by Susan Wolf. LINK
How to write a philosophy paper. LINK
You can post your comments beneath this post.

Categories: Uncategorized

15 responses so far ↓

  • Jordan Spake // March 25, 2009 at 1:24 am | Reply

    Schopenhaur does not seem like the kind of person I would like to meet. He seems very pessimistic with his views.
    “..that Time is continually pressing upon us, never letting us take a breath, but always coming after..” I suppose this is a truth in life that time is always after us, but that’s such a negative way to look at it. I like the optimistic view of time a lot better! I think it should be looked at as a precious thing and I believe you should live not worrying about time, but embracing the time you have left! I dislike how he says that our lives are strictly made up of work, worry, labor and trouble …what happened to all the positive good things in life?

    I never truely sat down and thought about the meaning of life as a whole. From reading the title of Wolf’s discussion I didn’t know what to expect I liked the question asked by Wolf saying “But how can individual lives have meaning if life as a whole has none?” To me, life has to have some meaning or else we humans and nature would not be here, so if life as a whole has meaning, then individual lives have to have some kind of meaning. The meaning of life confuses me nonetheless I might need some explination of this to understand it more.

  • ethicsclass // March 25, 2009 at 3:23 pm | Reply

    Schopenhauer must have been a depressed person. Although he had good points on some things, he took them to the far extremes and overexaggerated the bad things. He thinks that animals have better lives than humans and he feels bad for dogs who are tied up on chains and he dislikes their owners for chaining them up. I’m sorry, but I think my dog is happy to be civilized and to be fed everyday and run around outside and do what he pleases in my back yard, and at the end of the day he comes inside to sleep in a warm house and be fed twice a day with nutritious food to keep him healthy. For him to say my dog would be better off in the wild is stupid. My dog would die of starvation or disease from eating something he shouldn’t have. or he would get killed from a larger animal. Given, his life is happy and carefree because he does not understand his sufferings like humans do- but that doesn’t mean his life is better off than ours. If I were going to die in X amount of days, I would want to know. I would want to know so that I could live up my life to it’s fullest in the time I have left. The burden of knowing that I’m dying wouldn’t make me suffer – I would get to do things I’ve always wanted to do without regret (sort of like a Camus style of living). If I were like a dog and had no idea I was about to die, I would not enjoy my last moments alive because I wouldn’t know to enjoy them. His talk about religions made no sense. I don’t think he knows the Bible as well as he thinks he does. All in all, he just agrivated me while making me depressed. Why would I want to live my life that way? Pessimism is not what I want to spend my life dwelling on.

  • Chris Woodward // March 25, 2009 at 4:04 pm | Reply

    The Meanings of Lives
    by Susan Wolf

    “find a purpose or a point to human existence”, this a universal question!
    To have a God (or Gods?). No God no meaning, better, No God, Know meaning.
    Maybe she chickens out with “fairly specific religious metaphysics” and avoids the God issue.
    “meaning in lives can fit with a negative or agnostic view about the meaning of life.” Covering the bases to reduce possible critical attack.
    Focus on the person – “emotionally satisfying”
    She counters on page 5, last paragraph talking about “big names” then how they feel the lack of meaning. Stay focused.
    Maybe she was a “The Blob” and woke up, but what about the producers who wrote the junk, their life has no meaning by supplying the Blob with an outlet. Maybe the Blob know the meaning of life, a form of meditation!
    So a person who meditates, sit there and does nothing productive “And again, I have nothing against silly activity, but only against a life that is wholly occupied with it.“
    Useless lives! two of the three examples result in outflow to others!
    He had to sell the pigs to buy the land and corn so some benefited.
    The man who worked bought things or put the money in the bank and had others working for him.
    The case of the people loosing is a case of learning, too.
    Her argument that the failures are meaningless is wrong. We can learn from other’s mistakes.

    “What makes her life insufficiently meaningful is that her heart so to speak,isn’t in these activities.” YES, replace her with “your” and I full agree from the view of the individual.

    Change comes from within! (pg 11 last paragraph)
    Goodness and moral goodness another topic.
    Much better read than the last 3.
    I feel she is searching for Tao and has glimpsed it briefly.
    Bash everyone – last paragraph pg 16.
    “to have one’s life wrapped up with projects of positive value” but only if it is a positive value in her view!
    What is the meaning of God if having to have a God means we have a meaning?

    I think she has attacked everyone, but those who can’t attack her.

  • Chris Woodward // March 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm | Reply

    Schopenhauer
    “On the sufferings of the World”

    Now you have my attention. He is so dead on about the differences between the brute and man. It is true that man has increased the number of pleasures and also the pain. But I think his comment about the Brute being bored only if domesticated is not 100% true in that the Brute do “play” and do enjoy laying in the sun, why would seals and dogs do it.
    “their quiet, placid enjoyment of the present”
    moment” Having lived with a few animals in the house and those that freely roam the yard he speaks the truth, again from the eyes of a human.

    I have to re-read this, that is how much it has appealed to me. It is like reading about Tao, a ray of light perices the shut eye, it now slowly opens to a new view, and/or finds another harmony of life.

  • ethicsclass // March 25, 2009 at 4:41 pm | Reply

    Michael Bannon
    Schopenhauer’s views are very pessimistic; almost depressing to read. He just comes off as the kind of guy that is a real buzz-kill. Not someone I would like to go on vacation with. He’s focusing on all the bad things.. quite the opposite of Camus who only focus on the things he wanted to. His examplle of the magic trick that you have seen multiple times is kind of pointless. We all know that magic loses its appeal if you have seen it before, he just has the terrible attitude to point it out and dwell on it.
    As for Wolf, she got on my nerves as well. She sits on her ivy tower poking fun and judging all that don’t make these “projects of worth”. I like video games and crossword puzzles. They are worthy of my time.

  • Caitlin Maloney // March 25, 2009 at 5:23 pm | Reply

    I liked Schopenhauer’s essay! yes he is very pessimistic, but I would not say depressing necessarily, though it depends on how you absorb what he is saying. In his opening, he makes life out to be like a joke, and if you can laugh at life then you can stop taking it so seriously! I thought his analysis between man and brute was an interesting view– That the “domesticated” man anticipates joy/pain which ultimately makes a joyful/painful event less joyful/more painful. I liked Schopenhauer’s suggestion that “man possesses a machine for condensing and storing up his pleasures and sorrows.” It is an interesting thought that makes one wonder if that is really true just for humans or other animals as well? Schopenhauer is very blunt: “My philosophy is comfortless…” (p. 47). I liked a lot of what he said, though did not follow his religious analyses very well, considering that he states earlier “Go to the priests” for comfort and assurance in life. There were several things he said I disagreed with but generally enjoyed reading his point of view.

  • Will Kippins // March 25, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Reply

    At first I enjoyed Schopenhauer for his alternative view on life as opposed to the more optomistic philosophers we have read already. As i continued to read however i continued to find myself disagreeing with most everything he said. The idea that we only really realize that were alive when we are in pain is not true at all in my life. I am very thankful for everything that i have and am very aware of my good life. I actually am most aware of my life when I am the most happy, like on vacation or going out with friends or while just seeing the sun set. I feel as though while everyone likes a pessimist such as the character House, its hard to bare them telling you how miserable their lives are, and even worse when they tell you how terrible your life is as well.

  • Caitlin Maloney // March 25, 2009 at 6:17 pm | Reply

    Wolf opens with an interesting point about the role religion plays in driving one to find the meaning of life. How to define the meaning of life has been a question that people have faced for thousands of years, and by having the idea of a greater being or ultimate peace in an afterlife helps one to believe that, yes there is a meaning that you are here but now is not the time for you to find out. I like how Wolf asks, What is a meaningful life? The answer to that is different for everyone, I’m sure. Wolf herself went on and on attempting to answer this question in as many ways possible for about 15 pages. She had some good points and clear examples, but kept returning to the same ones and I lost interest. Also I do not agree with her approach to defining “meaningless lives.” Yes some people are “blobs” others spend their money without reason, but I do not believe that these glutonous or greedy characteristics that some people have necessarily mean that they as an individual are meaningless. Maybe the three hours someone spends sitting in front of a TV watching sitcom reruns are meaningless moments, but those moments do not define a person.

  • Robert L. Keller IV // March 25, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Reply

    From the very beginning in Wolf’s The Meanings of Lives, the statement of the question is an odd question in current academic terms. I very much wonder on Camus’ and Nagal’s thoughts on the meaning of life, and how absurd it is to even care about having some over all meaning at all. The last thing academic facilities want to do is convince their students that the over all meaning of life is meek and push their money being paid to them away. Now this is an interpretation and further thinking into the whole idea of how it is different in the general term and the academic arena.

    Schopenhauer

    Schopenhauer made me really happy to read, hmmm not the common response, getting a push into another’s mind set and seeing the reasoning and purpose of this mind set. Now the read may be of how evil is the positive by evil (harm, pain, misery, etc. ) being the norm. Since, the good is just getting away from the evil, which gives us hope that we can get away from the evil, which in turn makes us always push for such. But, because we push so hard for the good, it is never as great as we hoped it was. Making the evil feel that much more painful and powerful.
    The comparison of the brute used for quite a bit of the piece reminds me of the saying, “Ignorance is Bliss”. By not mentally working for the good, the good is amazing when it happens, and the evil isn’t as painful when it happens. Thus making the existence of the good and our mental push for it, is the reason lives are so dreadful.

    As these may not be my beliefs I largely see the reasoning and will being seeing how a certain friend of mine takes this type of info, and see how long I can continue to argue the point.

  • Danielle Scolaro // March 25, 2009 at 6:31 pm | Reply

    Arthur Schopenhauer’s essay was kid of depressing, but the way that his pessimistic view is different from optimistic philosophers makes it interesting to me. One phrase that stuck out to me was “I have reminded the reader that every state of welfare, every feeling of satisfaction, is negative in its character, that is t say, it consists in freedom from pain, which is the positive element of existence.” This quote is confusing to me because in one sense he is saying that every feeling of satisfaction is negative… and then he goes to say that freedom from pain is a positive element of life. It is a pessimistic view, but recognizing that there are positive elements in life is something that I like. Another quote that I liked was “This may perhaps sound strange, but it is in keeping with the facts; it puts other in a right light; and it reminds us of that which is after all the most necessary thing in life- the tolerance, patience, regard, and love of a neighbor, of which everyone stands in need, and which therefore every man owes to his fellow” I liked this quote because I agree that one thing that I hope all humans share is compassion for other humans. Camus’ ideas seem to take human emotion and love like it is for the weak minded and for people are aren’t facing the absurd, but I think that all people are fooling themselves if they think they don’t need other people. I think that tolerance and love of a neighbor is a part of everyone’s lives and people need some form of human relationship to be happy.
    Susan Wolf’s essay was a litter harder to get through. I liked how she put everything in perspective in the beginning of her article when she analyzes what people want to be the meaning of life and what wanting know the meaning of life says about a person. This is important because I feel that a person will believe anything in order to make themselves happy. I think that is why people join different religions because that religion’s beliefs make them content with living and being alive. People who aren’t religious just can’t buy what various religious groups are trying to sell. I think it is the people who question the meaning of life that haven’t made their mind up yet. Right now I am taking two philosophy classes, one every day, and I am constantly questioning different philosopher’s views of life as I read more and more material.

  • ethicsclass // March 25, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Reply

    Elizabeth Spencer–

    Schopenhauer is saying that we live in this world of sin and suffering because of a past existence that caused us to live this way. We inflict pain on things, like animals we consider pets for our own enjoyment and pleasure. He also says that our entire lives of work worry, labor and trouble are what occupy our time, because without them what would we do. Basically I think he’s saying that life sucks?
    The wolf reading was inconsistent and confusing. Blobs, or couch potatoes warrant more respect and a better life than others, and apparently Olympic athletes are like Blobs in certain respects. She tries to identify the meanings of lives by separating lives that have a good purpose, then what purposes are good, and then what is good, or worthy. She lost me.

  • Bobbi Lee McLaughlin // March 25, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Reply

    I found Wolf’s mode of writing to be more easily understood than some of the other readings we’ve done, but didn’t really enjoy her style of writing.
    Schopenhauer on the other hand, I found a little harder to understand, but constantly entertaining. His light but yet serious and satirical views on suffering are blunt and meaning filled.
    It makes me question if Schopenhauer himself was in some sort of pain to make him so in touch with other peoples pain and suffering. His delivery on the matters is relatable and clarifying.
    He questions why this pain? Why this agony?
    As i do not agree with his pessimistic views, I can appreciate each one of them because of his style and sarcastic charm.

  • Aline Brown // March 25, 2009 at 6:37 pm | Reply

    As I began to read Schopenhauer I found his views to be interesting in that they are so upfront and pessimistic, holding little to nothing back. His ideas that as a child one has a great outlook on what life will be, however, as you grow older you become disappointed with what life truly turns out to be is not one that I can agree with. There is a sense of “What is the purpose of life?” that Schopenhauer seems to force the reader to think about but on the other hand, he almost questions the possibility of any positive thoughts with such pessimistic views. His views are certainly not ones that I 100% agree with. He does have interesting views, after all life isn’t full of only positive and happy things. By Schopenhauer addressing the “reality” of life he helps to draw out the positive ideas and viewpoints that he doesn’t mention.

  • Alex LeVeen // March 25, 2009 at 6:50 pm | Reply

    Wolf believes living a meaningful life requires “successful engagement in projects of positive value” and I find it hard to disagree with such a broad statement. She also claims that the “possibility of living meaningful lives despite the absence of an overall meaning to life depends on the fact that distinctions of value (that is, of objective value) do not rely on the existence of God or of any overarching purpose to the human race as a whole.” I don’t think the possibility of meaningfulness is solely dependent upon existence of God(s) or overarching themes. Does this not immediately narrow one’s mind to subjective appeal? I agree that “some objects, activities and ideas are better than others. Whether or not God exists, some ways of living are more worthwhile than others. Some activities are a waste of time,” but I acknowledge that this is also subject to opinion. It seems that anyone, who tries tackling this question, might as well battle with the oceans or extinguish the sun’s light. For me, I believe there are infinite meanings in all of our lives and it is ineffable to toil with their stubborn mysteries. Rather, I do my best to live in harmony with the cosmos.

  • justin funderburk // March 25, 2009 at 6:59 pm | Reply

    The meanings of lives

    I liked her essay on the meaning of lives. Can someone live a meaningful life? She answers this question by saying that you can live a meaningful life if you indulge yourself in self interests that involve doing good things for you and also for other people. You can’t be egocentric because you only care about yourself. you have to care about others because they are worth just as much as you are. I agree with this fully. on the other hand, schopenhauer’s views were interesting and seemingly reasonable. He states that there is a balance of pain and pleasure in the world. You can’t have nothing but good in the world because how would men occupy their time? This would lead to only more violence. All good comes to an end with pain and I believe that.

Leave a Comment