Soren Kierkegaard Truth is Subjectivity + William Ophuls PDF

Preview

Summary

Soren Kierkegaard and William Ophuls summary for Philosophy 1. Professor Vician. ...

Description

PHIL 1 June 7, 2015 Vician Soren Kierkegaard: Truth is Subjectivity Essay Analysis 1. Identify the author’s essay thesis, i.e. the position the author supports on the topic. What Soren Kierkegaard is exclaiming is that subjectivity is important. He says this because this aspect among people is the the way people relate themselves to the truth. “Subjectivity is truth” and “truth is subjectivity and by this, he means that truth is not only a matter of discovering objective facts. While these facts may be important, there is another element of truth which is crucial. These two elements combine to involve how one relates oneself to those matters of fact. 2. Identify the position against which the essay’s author argues. The position that Soren Kierkegaard is arguing against is the belief that subjectivity does not equal truth and vice versa. His mind is set to this belief because when truth is matched up with objectivity, the truth becomes more vague and obscure compared to truth being found in subjectivity where the answer is more narrow. Since how one acts is from the ethical perspective, more important than any matter of fact, truth is to be found in subjectivity. 3. State the data, e.g. reasons/facts/evidence, the author provides to support her/his position on the issue. (You should provide in one sentence or more, the main point of each of the essay’s paragraphs.) Kierkegaard starts off with explaining how subjectivity is natural within people and explains how it is more effective because it comes so easily. He says that Subjectivity comes with consciousness of people alone without effort. It encompasses the emotional and intellectual resources that the individual is born with. To Kierkegaard, subjectivity is what the individual is as a human being. Subjectivity is that which the individual has and no one else can interfere with. Soren Kierkegaard expresses this as owning something that is intangible. It means to be someone who is becoming someone from the past, present and future. He says that different people experience time in various ways and that these experiences are unique because they belong to the person who experienced them, not anyone else. These subjective times, are what creates the meaning or identity of someone. Kierkegaard also explains that the goal of life is to know yourself. Knowing oneself means being aware of who one is and what one can be and what one cannot be. This relates to subjectivity in many ways because of the amount of personal involvement with this theory. Essentially, what Soren Kierkegaard is saying is that finding your own identity is finding the truth and finding the truth requires subjectivity.

Being Christian, Kierkegaard says that truth resides in God and that God is subjective. He uses his religious views within his philosophical idea of truth by saying that God must incarnate to reveal the truth to someone. He says that every human being has knowledge because of God. In order to find the truth, you must interact with God through a subject-to-subject encounter. Moreover, Kierkegaard is alluding to seek peoples’ acceptance to christianity. 4. State the data, e.g. reasons/facts/evidence, the author gives for why the opposed position on the topic is unacceptable. Kierkegaard’s works can easily be misunderstood if not read within the proper context. Kierkegaard has a basic rejection of objectivity because he says that it does not relate to any subject. Objectivity does not inspire more ideas. What subjectivity offers is that it brings more answers that explain the “why” and “how” of things. These answers have a much more lasting value than short objective answers that get right to the chase. Subjectivity is obviously more philosophical and prestigious. I felt that Soren Kierkegaard was trying to promote a sense of professionalism with lack of anger because of his religious views. Subjectivity through the human brings more of a fair and constructive experience for others rather than a dull experience. If people were to share opinions instead of experiences all day, the intellectual conversation may go nowhere. It takes absolutely zero effort or imagination to have an opinion about anything and everything but the experiences that are shared through subjectivity are valuable and stand as the truth rather than false form of sharing. Adding onto the opinionated topic above, subjectivity is more beneficial than objectivity because it creates ideas that are backed up with facts and references. Rather than speaking your mind out without any intellectual reference, subjectivity brings a more positive energy to philosophical ideas to bring a great truth in things. Identification is key in this ideal and experiences are backed up through facts and references to stay credible. 5. What social/economic/intellectual, and/or emotional level of personal life do you infer the author represents/supports? On a social level, I feel like on my personal life, I can really truly create a connection with Kierkegaard’s belief. His idea about people having their own experiences without the reach of others is insanely true in life. For instance, if I walk down a street and see a homeless person, I shouldn’t automatically judge them for what they are in the present time because we don’t know what their experiences were in the past and we don’t know where they might be headed for the future. 6. Do you agree/disagree with the author’s position on the issue, and give reasons on why do you agree/disagree? I disagree with the author’s position on the issue because subjectivity is not the key to everything. Being objective brings a sense of realism to the conversation and it’s needed a lot of

times while being too subjective can bring a lot of unrealistic views that can hardly be backed up by true facts and references. 7. Is the author’s position able to be extended equitably on a national/global basis? It could be extended equitably on a national or global basis but I feel that this topic is too complex to bring up to the world.

PHIL 1 May 17, 2015 Vician William Ophuls: The Politics of Scarcity Essay Analysis 1. Identify the author’s essay thesis, i.e. the position the author supports on the topic. William Ophuls introduces politics to us with an economical emphasis. He states that “Our own era has been the longest and certainly the most important exception. During roughly the last 450 years, the carrying capacity of the globe has been markedly expanded, and several centuries of relative abundance have completely transformed the face of the earth and made our societies and our civilization what they are today - relatively open, egalitarian, libertarian, and conflict-free.” He exclaims the value of the world’s economy and how being in a crisis is will put the world into danger. Ophuls says that we have been having it good for the past few centuries however, with resources going to an all time-low we are facing ecological scarcity but there is a way to find a cure for this tragedy. 2. Identify the position against which the essay’s author argues. The position in which Ophuls argues against is the lack of care for our economy and how resources are being spent impulsively when there are better ways to use our resources to prevent an ecological crisis. Moreover, Ophuls is also arguing that we are not in an economical abundance right now. 3. State the data, e.g. reasons/facts/evidence, the author provides to support her/his position on the issue. (You should provide in one sentence or more, the main point of each of the essay’s paragraphs.) The strongest point that Ophuls brought up is The Public Goods Problem. He addresses this problem that it is one of the most common problems throughout the globe. The main argument of The Public Good Problem is that the same amount of rational gain by any civilian loses the same amount in a short amount of time. He uses an example where a husband can’t survive in a market economy because sooner or later there will be someone else to out-compete him or he is not making enough profit. Unfortunately the only way to treat this problem is by government action and that hasn’t been reliable for many years. There is also a sense of nasty fascism when it comes to ecological scarcity. Ophuls exclaims that there is a good showing of coercion because of the political leaders not using their political power for any good. This simply means that these powerful human beings are easily getting and enjoying the outcome of this scarcity by benefiting themselves without being moral and helping out the rest of the world.

Ophuls also brings a valid point in that human demands are not changeable alone. There are different variables that are included amongst human demands for businesses and markets to go up in prices. The political authorities also don’t spend their resources efficiently enough to create human demand and their distributions only sever the scarcity into more extreme levels of this crisis. Ophuls talks about the idea of ecological contracts. The concept itself is simple and effective. In theory, the contract might adjust how the political authorities will have power in different roles and the resources spent can be more cost efficient. Also people might need more freedom in order to get the market moving because restrictions can repel bold moves and fluxes in a market system. 4. State the data, e.g. reasons/facts/evidence, the author gives for why the opposed position on the topic is unacceptable. The reason why ecological scarcity is even looking more scarce than it already is is because people as a whole do not care to take action for it. There has not been attitudinal change that will bring major changes in individual behavior so altruism is not enough. This is implying we don’t have many people educated in the field of economics to help make a change for a more positive economy to prevent ecological scarcity. Our political authorities regulate many of our daily actions and it is profound. We tend to see political systems without our kind of political and economic liberties meaning that we are kept under restrictions to help our own individual self carry us out of this scarcity. Ecological scarcity created a very tough situation for people that critical decisions need to be made. However, nobody has the willingness nor the qualities to step up and create a change in the society. An average man does not have the specifics to inform himself of the important problems and solutions to attend such an important task. Ecological scarcity is a field unknown to many. 5. What social/economic/intellectual, and/or emotional level of personal life do you infer the author represents/supports? On an economic level, ecological scarcity is easily shown today not only based on the lack of resources left on the planet, but the lack of jobs, homes, etc. The amount of people that make up this world we live in contributes to our scarcity however, it will take the same amount of people to bounce back from such a harmful situation. 6. Do you agree/disagree with the author’s position on the issue, and give reasons on why do you agree/disagree? I definitely agree. Especially with the political powers of each nation working together and creating technological advancements such as hybrids and electronic cars, I feel that we have

a definite chance to make a change in the world as long as no corruption occurs between these authorities. 7. Is the author’s position able to be extended equitably on a national/global basis? It has already extended to a global basis and it is taking action now and there are learning opportunities in the natural and economical fields to help prevent us from such harsh situations....