From the beginning of the year we have seen an endless debate about how the human min, with its concepts and judgments, "fits together" with the seemingly meaningless world of material, physical things in which we find ourselves. There are three key movements in this debate:
-PLATO thought that real things were reflections of "Ideal Forms" from a Higher World of pure, eternal ideas; -ARISTOTLE thought there was no Higher World, but that real things contained their own inner purpose (telos) -Most importantly, ST. THOMAS AQUINAS unified these two views with the Christian religion, providing a long-lasting (and still popular) explanation of the world: the things around us are products of God's Mind (like Plato's Ideal Forms), each "designed" with their own specific built-in "law" or purpose (like Aristotle's telos). The centuries between Aquinas and the death of Nietzsche (1900) saw the collapse of uncomplicated faith in religion, thanks to the scientific revolution, the discovery of evolution, and the rise of technological nihilism. It seemed that humans, with our minds and their search for meaning, were left stranded in a world without any purpose or significance beyond the random movements of matter. The five 20th century philosophies we looked at each tried to address this problem. Which do you think provided us with the best means for finding new meaning in life (or helping us cope with the lack of meaning)? Defend your answer with an example from your own life, a world event, and/or a fictional character's experience. -Existentialism: All meaning is invented by the human subject ("Existence precedes Essence") -Pragmatism: All "truth" is a temporary interpretation of a changing reality which is good as long as it "works" -Psychoanalysis: The nonsensical drives of the unconscious are more basic than the rationalizations of the mind. -Marxism: Meaning is found through analysis of the "objective" structures of society (dialectical class conflict) -Analytic Philosophy: "Meaning" is just the product of a logical structure of language and social interaction
2 Comments
Abby Westgate
2/10/2016 05:29:22 pm
Because we have the option of using a fictional character as an example and because I'm currently reading The Things They Carried in English class, I'm leaning more toward pragmatism as the best means for finding a new meaning in life and/or helping us cope with lack of meaning. In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien and the other soldiers fighting in the Vietnam War often talk about meaning, especially when telling each other war stories. Tim stresses that it doesn't matter whether a war story is a true story--sometimes stories of fiction are better war stories than those that actually happened. The practice of telling fictional war stories is pragmatism at its core. The soldiers pragmatically tell war stories based on how they interpret their changing reality. This becomes their "Truth." This is the only way the soldiers can make sense of their absurd situations. They know that they will never be able to find true meaning and reason behind why they are in Vietnam, fighting a war that no one can fathom. However, telling temporary interpretations of their realities is what works for them.
Reply
Jessica Auriemma
2/15/2016 08:49:34 pm
I do not think pragmatism is the best way however I think it is the way people often choose. Since pragmatism is essentially saying that truth is whatever works in the moment, it is an easy way to tell ourselves a “truth” that may not necessarily be true however we want an answer and in the moment, this answer will suffice. I think pragmatism allows us to justify whatever we chose to believe. It can also help solve problems quickly because we can come up with whatever answer we want as so long as it “works” for now then it can be true. This can be seen when parents have to explain serious topics to their children. For example, my youngest sister is only seven. When she was around five her pet fish, Blueberry, died and when she asked my parents why she had to flush him down the toilet my mom told her that “Blueberry had grown too big for his bowl so he needs to go to a bigger home like the ocean and flushing him down the toilet is the quickest way to get him there.” Although entirely untrue both my sister and mom were willing to accept it as truth. My sister accepted it because she did not know any better and my mom accepted it because telling her that he needed a new home was easier than explaining to her daughter that her fish is dead. I think people settle on truth like this quite often because believing something that may not make total sense is easier than leaving dozens of questions unanswered. As a species always in search of answers we need something to satisfy the desire for knowledge. Pragmatism allows us to answer questions but later change those answers if we find something better.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
April 2016
Categories |