Change in the schedule

Former Schedule:

According to the syllabus:

Oct 6th, we will be talking about the Pratt essay on "Nihilism", and Lucas will be presenting.

New Schedule.

Because we have made a switch,

on Oct. 6th we will do in-class Peer Reviewing.

On Oct. 8th, Lucas will give his presentation on "Nihilism" and on Oct. 10th we will have a discussion about freedom.

Earlier we were talking about how Nietschze sees the rational and intuitive man, how they are, and how they see themselves.  So often when getting to know people we ask trivial question like where they're from what their major is et cetera.  We often consider knowing about someone and knowing someone to be synonymous.  I feel like the way most people get to know each other is pretty superficial and even somewhat of an illusion.  I think someone who knows nothing about another person's background but understands how someone thinks, all of their delusions and irrational trains of thought, knows that other person much person than if it were the other way around.  How do you guys feel Nietschze's views of how we can go about understanding ourselves can carry over to getting to know each other?

Happiness between Aristotle and Augustine

Just a bit of musing about human nature...Aristotle says happiness can only be achieved through virtue, which in his terms means  the ability to be self-sufficient, to be the best "whatever" (carpenter, lawyer, etc) you can be. However, for Augustine, happiness comes from the hope of a life directed towards being with God in heaven. Obviously, one theory depends greatly on the individual, and the other the divine. Is it possible to be truly happy with one or the other? Are humans, as social creatures, able to be happy in a life that doesn't depend on the relationships or opinions of others? Conversely, can humans live a fulfilled and happy life without a sense or relationship with divinity?

New Presentation Rule, in effect beginning Friday, Sep. 26th

You cannot use more than 2 quotations in your presentation and neither can be more than 20 words.  You should try to explain these quotes when you use them.

You should still cite page numbers when paraphrasing.

Aristotle vs Matthew

After today's class, I thought about what Maureen said about how Aristotle and Matthew contradict each other. Aristotle focuses on how irrvirtuous actions affect your character and how habits dictate the type of person you are. Matthew asks what kind of person you are and says that this dictates your habits. Matthew also notes that feelings are the basis for actions. This makes me wonder about the questions that were brought up in class such as that of whether happiness is a fleeting feeling or not. In addition, what about the other feelings, such as anger? Is it impossible to not be angry? Because the things you say when you are angry are often the most dangerous. In the case of these questions, do Aristotle or Matthew's thoughts aid us in answering them? I am not so sure, to be honest.

After leaving today's class (9/15), I was a bit confused on what defines our characters.  I really liked what Stephanie said about how the smaller things (like picking up a piece of paper by a garbage can or holding a door open for someone for example) were just reflections of our character, rather than defining elements of it.  However, I also believe that most of our character stems from the environment we are in, how are brought up, where we are from, i.e.  These aren't contradicting ideas, are they?  And how would this affect Aristotle's statement that one can acquire virtue of character by acting in a certain way?

Happiness as "natural"

If we do not have a concept of the soul like Aristotle's, can we have a similar concept of happiness?