Can we seek compromise through language?

Compromise is one of the hardest things this world will come across, especially in regards to the Nature of Human Nature.  However, when we are faced with conflict in important institutions, such as the government, society must make some sort of compromise.  Can language be the answer for some disputes?

In class, we came across the idea of thinking of the universe equal to the way some religions think of "God" or "Self."  Some religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, believe that the "universe" is, essentially, "God" and that everything works not because God rules but because all of the laws of physics are God.  With naturalists, the universe controls all, the laws of physics, logic, reason.  However, scientists have limited knowledge of the universe, just like religious individuals have about their "God." I believe in order to take a step in the direction of "pragmatic empiricism," society must take these types of connections into consideration and try to reach a compromise when both parties could have the same main idea but have different branches off of the idea. 

Response to Jenna's "Butterfly Effect"

I believe that Jenna proposed an interesting concept, the Butterfly Effect, to use alongside free will and determinism.  However, I believe the entire concept of the Butterfly Effect can only work in a world of free will and determinism.  If we were to believe that free will is true, then, in coexistence with the Butterfly Effect, everything that we CHOOSE to do will have an effect on the determined future of what WILL happen.  The entire idea of having a world of free will and determinism is fascinating but always leads to a dead end, in my opinion. 

"Everything happens for a reason"

When thinking of the concept of determinism my mind came across the clique "Everything happens for a reason." Thinking of this quote made me question the meaning behind cliques like this one. People often use "everything happens for a reason" as a playful saying. However, from a determinist perspective, it makes a lot of sense. We are destined to do things and things are destined to happened to us because they are predetermined. Do other cliques have a logical background to them?

"Pleasure Scale" Response

I completely agree with Jenna's response to the range of pleasure, it ranges from person to person.  Human beings may all strive towards similar things, pleasure, happiness, a 'good' life.  However, the specifics of what pleasures, what makes up happiness, what makes someone feel as if they have had a good life, are all different.  I believe everyone's mind is made up differently and what you love or what you have determined is human nature will lead to that individuals happiness and a full 'good' life. 

Emotion as a Telo

As I was reading this week's chapter, I came across a hypothetical question about Aristotle's view on a human being's telo: If according to Aristotle our sole purpose as human beings were to reason, would an individual not be reaching their full potential of happiness if they lived a life of emotion? Even if that was their 'telo?'

If one were to lead a life solely based on their emotions, based on love, sadness, excitement, would they be living the right way, according to Aristotle? My attempt to answer this would center around another question, Would a person who believes that emotion is a tool for reason actually be living a knowledgeable and good life?  These type of questions are hard to answer. Yes, how to reason is up to the individual or no there is only one way to reason?

Is Priori Knowledge Important?

One of the basis of Plato's arguments is that all human beings posses the prior knowledge, the "good" knowledge.  However, as humans we must recall that knowledge as we move on through life.  My discrepancy with this theory is what determines if we have actually recalled or found that "good" knowledge.  How, as human beings, are we supposed to know what knowledge we come across is good or not?

I suppose my point touches on the grand question, what is the difference between right and wrong.  However, I believe Plato's theory proposes too broad of an answer. 

Response to "Another interpretation for Plato's Metaphysics" - Corbin Brassard

"Plato believed that a world of forms existed and that the reason people can see two different, unique objects both as chairs is because they are both attempts to replicate the form of chair. I think it is because humans have the ability to reason and look at the shape of the objects and see that they are most likely to function as chairs... and that its our ability to comprehend the function of the materials that makes it a chair."

The above quote is what struck me most about Brassard's post.  I am in total agreement that Plato did not "capture the full truth" when speaking of his Theory of Forms.  Without humans to determine what a chair is, would there be a chair? If a human did not think of the word 'chair' would there be a chair? Yes, there would be a chair but it would be a completely different concept.  The entire idea of the Theory of Forms makes sense, but like Brassard said, it is incomplete.