Foundationalism

I found Rowan’s presentation on foundationalism to be very thought provoking (if my plethora of questions didn’t already make that quite obvious). I tend to like the idea that there should be a central idea that one relies on for many of one’s thoughts. Two philosophers that I think really add to this conversation are Descartes and Nicolas Wolterstorff. Descartes provides a really compelling argument for existence through his idea that he cannot doubt that he doubts. He then follows this up with his argument that God cannot be a deceiver; thus we must be observing what truly exists. I feel like this argument would provide a pretty good foundation for anyone who believes in God. Wolterstorff provides another interesting take on the foundationalism discussion. He defines what he calls “controlling beliefs.” These are beliefs that a person accepts as true and that shape the rest of his or her discovery of knowledge. That we exist and properly perceive things would probably qualify as a controlling belief. Personally, I normally don’t spend too much time on these problems out of practicality. I cannot prove that I perceive what actually exists, but I do know that my life is a lot happier if I believe that I can perceive things. I also see no benefit to skepticism, other than as an intellectual exercise. This is the same idea that I apply to free will. I cannot prove that I have free will, but I do know that it feels like I have free will. I choose to believe in free will since I can see no practical benefit to denying it.

Class Discussions

I am writing in response to Thursday’s class discussion. Although the class discussion was focused on the piece “The disparity between intellect and character.” However, the discussion quickly turned to peoples’ opinions on Baylor’s development of the whole person while in college. This was actually one of the more interesting classes I have had in college and I was a little bit disappointed when we transitioned over to Jeopardy. People seemed really open to talking about their perspectives, some of which were very personal and some of which were just about Baylor in general. As the student regent, I am always quick to defend the decisions that Baylor makes as I can see all of the hard work that goes into them. So as we began the discussion I was a little caught off guard to hear some of the negative thoughts. However, I actually ended up really appreciating the discussion. I think that it is helpful for me to hear a wide variety of student opinions as I try and impact the board and administration to serve students more effectively. I also think that the quality of that discussion was driven by the interactive format of the class. Very few classes that I have been a part of have grown comfortable enough with each other to have that quality of discussion. It also helps that Dr. Schultz calls on people while we are in class. That everyone is “forced” to participate makes the environment better for the whole class.

Economics and Philosophy

This is the first time that I have ever written a paper on an ancient philosopher. At first it was kind of an intimidating experience. It seemed like everyone else in the class had an idea for their papers very early. I suspect that experiences in great texts courses would be very helpful along those lines. That being said, I am really happy with the topic I have selected. I don’t have very much to say about Aristotle when he is considered on his own that someone else hasn’t already said. However, I do have a background in economics that most people who study Aristotle don’t have. My paper applies Economics to Aristotle, and I have come to be fairly proud of that structure of analysis. What I really appreciate about these two specific fields is that they synergize so effectively. When I say that most everyone pauses…they see economics and philosophy as completely unrelated. However, economics gives me a framework for analyzing cause and effect in decision-making. I can see how to make decisions to reach different outcomes. It does not give me a good framework for determining which of those outcomes is best. That is where philosophy comes into play. Philosophy gives me a way to look at possible outcomes and determine which one is best, but doesn’t help me know (in most cases) how to get to that outcome. In this way, I think that the two fields work very well together.

Friendship and Self-Sufficiency

In the final chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle provides the ultimate conclusion to his development of the eudaimonistic life. He says that it is a life of contemplation because (among other things) contemplation leads to the purest form of self-sufficiency. I have always appreciated Aristotelian self-sufficiency and would like to talk a little bit about how that might relate to the relationships from the previous chapter. One of my favorite sermonettes ever came during what is called Friday morning fellowship, a Bible study for professionals that meets in downtown Chicago every week. The leader spoke of the ideal model for a marriage. He said that people too often look at their spouse as the person who completes them. However, said the speaker, the best marriages are those that unite two completely self-sufficient and independent people. For it is only when someone is independent that he or she can really serve and love his or her spouse. I think that these thoughts really apply to Aristotle’s viewpoints on the life of contemplation and friendship. One can best reach the top-tier of friendship once he or she has already become an independent person and has more to give to their friend. This obviously applies to more than just marriage, but to all friendship in general. Finally, I really like how Aristotle integrates relaxation into his ideal life structure. One has to relax so that he can be better rested when he actually needs the energy. However, relaxation is not an end, but rather something that help achieve another end. It would be interesting if Aristotle would apply relaxation to relationships—AKA would relationships be better if people took occasional breaks?

Response to Dr. Carron's Lecture

I am writing a reflection on the class from this last Thursday where Dr. Paul Carron discussed with the class Aristotle’s views on friendship. This was a particularly important reading for my own life right now as I am working hard on building relationships with the people around me. For the last year, I have been the student regent at Baylor. This has been the best experience of my life, but I have come to realize that I have not invested enough of my time in my relationships because of my increased busyness. What I really appreciate is how Aristotle speaks of how relationships add meaning to life. Dr. Carron did a really great job of working through the different types of relationships. I also really appreciated how he tied our discussion of Aristotle into biblical truths. Specifically, Matt. 22: 39 says, “’Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Christ says that this is the second greatest commandment of all. We are made to have relationships. Similarly, relationships are what bring the value and substance to our lives. Aristotle gives one of the best structures for a relationship that I have heard with his friends of goodness. I think it is very important to look at all of one’s friendships and determine if they are friends of utility, pleasure, or goodness. It is not that friends of utility or pleasure are bad. But rather that we must actively seek to move as many of our friendships as possible to the level of being friends of goodness.