What was your total word count?

1.  My total word count was 5,929 words. 

Did you do everything on the blog checklist, on every blog? Quotes? Original examples? Personal application? 

1. Yes, I completed the blog checklist on every blog. 

Have you revised since our midterm meeting? How many revisions did you do?

1. Yes, I revised 2 blogs. I made revisions to The William James blog and The Republic Book: X. 

Did you do a presentation?

1. Yes I did a presentation. 

How was your participation in general? How was your attendance? 

1. Overall my participation in class was good, I feel like I asked questions for better understanding and participated in class discussion very well. My attendance was okay, I missed 3 days in total due to family emergencies and personal health issues. 

How many blogs did you submit prior to class discussion of the topic? 

1. I submitted 6 blogs out of the required 7, prior to the class discussion of the topic.

How many comments did you make? 

1. I made 15 comments. 

How many glossary words do you have? Have you indicated the lecture or reading from which they originated? 

1. I had 30 glossary words, included from both lecture and the readings the words originated from. 

Given the course requirements, what grade have you earned. 

1. Overall the grade I have earned would be an A. I believe I earned an A because I met all the requirements necessary for the blogs. Also, I participated in class when classes were not virtual. Although the most important reason would be because I am leaving this class with a better understanding of philosophy prior to when I failed this class at Sacramento State. 

What will you remember most about this course as a whole? 

1. I will remember the about me presentations the most. I chose the about me presentations because it is not common that professors take time to individually get to know each student. I also plan to use this technique once I become an official educator. By getting to know each student individually it let the students know tht Dr. Rodriguez was passionate about the role she played in our lives as a professor and I can always respect and appreciate that. 

After reading Existentialism is a Humanism, my understanding of what existentialism humanism is the belief that humans have no thought or type of pre-existence. Humanism can be explained as any study that focuses on humans. I personally do not agree with Existentialism Humanism because I am Christian. Christians do believe that God has planned our life and it’s our duty to walk the path that God has already foreseen. The ideology that Sartre presented does not align with my Christian values but I do believe that humans should have the free will to live as they please. “Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us” (Sartre, 3). This quote explains the main reason why Sartre does not believe in God and how God does not align with the ideology behind Existentialism Humanism. Existentialism Humanism identifies the human as it’s creator, also it focuses on the belief that God is an essence and is overall made up because man decided to create that thought. This ideology believes that men are here simply because man is. When Sartre talks about abandonment he is referring to God. Sartre is not saying that God existed but rather mentioning God in a metaphorical way. Sartre emphasizes the sense of loss caused by the realisation that God does not exist. When Sartre mentions anguish as the negative feeling that comes from freedom and responsibility, freedom from defining yourself and responsibility of choosing for all humankind. When Sartre mentions despair, he is saying that people should not hope for things that they can not reasonably predict. I agree with Sartre’s beliefs on despair, because it is good to have hope but to want things that are not reasonable or the things that are not being worked towards. Despair to me is created by self fifty percent of the time. Personally for me family and friends, or really all human interaction makes life meaningful. I enjoy spending quality time with people I am close to. Making memories is my favorite thing to do. Also, having belief in a higher power makes life more meaningful. I’ve been through many things in life and God has been consistent. “Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not in the least that of plunging men into despair” (Sartre, 12). Lastly, this quote resonated with me because it helped me understand what Sartre was explaining and why his ideology can be important to someone who aligns with those beliefs. Overall, Sartre’s arguments can be valid to someone who does not believe in God, but to me Satre’s arguments are not valid. Sartre’s arguments are sound, but do not align with my personal  beliefs and values. Sartre’s reading was personally interesting for me because I am a Christian and it is interesting to see other points of views that may not align with my personal beliefs. Sartre’s point of view gave an academic perspective on how he believed that humans are humans simply because they are.

The allegory of the cave essentially stresses the importance of education. The ‘Allegory Of The Cave’ is a theory put forward by Plato, concerning human perception. Plato claimed that knowledge gained through the senses is no more than opinion and that, in order to have real knowledge, we must gain it through philosophical reasoning. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison, for they know no better life. The prisoners manage to break their bonds one day and discover that their reality was not what they thought it was. Plato does a phenomenal job of highlighting the main issue with society–people being afraid or looking down upon enlightenment and learning furthermore about what life has to offer. 

Nonetheless, there is a parallel between the prisoners in Plato’s cave and the spectators in the cinema. Plato essentially argues that many people are looked down upon when they try to educate the public. So, when the prisoner returned to the cave and tried to present an escape plan and they thought he was crazy, it further proved that people believe whatever is convenient and aren’t subjective towards learning new ideas. Plato made a great point by saying “Then, if this is true, our view of these matters must be this, that education is not in reality what some people proclaim it to be in their professions. What they aver is that they can put true knowledge into a soul that does not possess it, as if they were inserting vision into blind eyes”. The prisoners in the cave have been so accustomed to their life that they didn’t question whether or not that was truly their reality. For instance, when people watch marvel fictional or mystical movies, they don’t question the validity of it. They don’t question how all of the “fake stuff’ could be real. They don’t even entertain the idea that humans may or may not really carry superpowers. If none of this fictional stuff was real or exist at some point, why would directors make movies off of it out of the blue?  Society is built on the premises of creating a system where everyone can fall in line and be controlled. Hence why many philosophical thinkers were shunned, prosecuted, and even murdered for thinking outside the box and going against social norms.

I think it could be very possible that the physical world is not reality. Plato claims that “You have again forgotten, my friend said I, that the law is not concerned with the special happiness of any class in the state, but is trying to produce this condition in the city as a whole, harmonizing and adapting the citizens to one another by persuasion and compulsion, and requiring them to impart to one another any benefit which they are severally able to bestow upon the community, and that it itself creates such men in the state, not that it may allow each to take what course pleases him, but with a view to using them for the binding together of the commonwealth.” People don’t question their reality or the physicality of things because it would be inconvenient. Based on the way Plato explained the state of Socrates, if everyone was enlightened, there would be no structure and people would have to think for themselves. Laws and codes keep society in check and keep people one-track-minded but once [people educate themselves and really question ideologies on their own, people won’t follow the rules which are detrimental to a functioning society–which is the biggest fear of people who govern these societies. Relating back to the prisoners of the cave, they didn’t want to believe the man that claimed there was life beyond the cave because that would require them to question everything they have ever known. People are often scared to learn because the more knowledge you gain, the more the truth is exposed–according to Plato and Socrates. 

 When the prisoners were finally able to see the world that the man raved about, they were overwhelmed with emotions. They initially felt awful because they doubted the man but then they felt a sense of individuality because they finally were able to think for themselves–even see for themselves. The shadows and the reflections the man claimed he saw were all true because they were able to witness the same things. They too were now enlightened now that they have stepped outside of the box and let their mind wander which is natural. In the Allegory of the cave, Plato depicts the image of people being the cause of their own demand when they don’t want to educate themselves. “Observe, then, Glaucon, said i, that we shall not be wronging, either, the philosophers who rise among us, but that we can justify our action when we constrain them to take charge of the other citizens and be their guardians. For we will say to them that it is natural that men of similar quality who spring up in other cities should not share in the labors there”. Education doesn’t always come in the form of school, according to Socrates, education is questioning what’s around you and the ideas imposed onto you. Many philosophical thinkers have martyred themselves in order for the following generations to be able to think outside the box without persecution so the least people can do is educate themselves. Overall, Plato made very great points that would lead the way for other enlightened people to do research and positively influence others around them to do the same.

Tolstoy explains the definition of art to be rather personal to each individual. People can perceive art in different ways because of the experiences that they experience throughout their personal life. For example a painting to me may look like happiness and love because of the use of yellow paints and orange paints, while the same painting to someone else can look like pain and abandonment. Connections can be made by different images and expressions are controlled by individual concepts. “In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man. Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression” (Tolstoy, Ch. 5). When people create art they express whatever emotions that are present within themselves at the moment. If an artist is happy it is most likely possible for them to be painting happy images. If an artist is sad and or mad it is possible for that artist to paint something that expresses that emotion. When someone observes a piece of art it immediately affects them and that’s the connection that is made from the artist’s initial emotion. “Speech, transmitting the thoughts and experiences of men, serves as a means of union among them, and art acts in a similar manner. The peculiarity of this latter means of intercourse, distinguishing it from intercourse by means of words, consists in this, that whereas by words a man transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he transmits his feelings. The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man’s expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it. To take the simplest example; one man laughs, and another who hears becomes merry; or a man weeps, and another who hears feels sorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and another man seeing him comes to a similar state of mind. By his movements or by the sounds of his voice, a man expresses courage and determination or sadness and calmness, and this state of mind passes on to others. A man suffers, expressing his sufferings by groans and spasms, and this suffering transmits itself to other people; a man expresses his feeling of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to certain objects, persons, or phenomena, and others are infected by the same feelings of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to the same objects, persons, and phenomena. And it is upon this capacity of man to receive another man’s expression of feeling and experience those feelings himself, that the activity of art is based” (Tolstoy, Ch. 5). Tolstoy explains the initial connection between the artist and the audience as intercourse. I can agree with this statement because artist do have to be in a vulnerable state to share an expression of emotion and when someone can relate to that emotion and understand it that vulnerability is shared. Emotion and art play hand and hand because it is an exchange of emotion. Tolstoy suggests that we apply the emotional standpoint to evaluate art because art is not art if there is no emotional connection between the artist and the audience. Personally I agree that this is a useful proposal because to me art is an expression of emotion and to connect to someone could make an impact and that could be the goal for an artist. The proposal is also useful because artists are very vulnerable and having someone to share that experience with is also positive and impactful.

Throughout the reading, The Republic: Book X, Plato argues that there is one possible idea and or truth and anything after that would be considered a copycat version of the original copy. “Who is he? One who is the maker of all the works of all other workmen. What an extraordinary man! Wait a little, and there will be more reason for your saying so. For this is he who is able to make not only vessels of every kind, but plants and animals, himself and all other things –the earth and heaven, and the things which are in heaven or under the earth; he makes the gods also. He must be a wizard and no mistake. Oh! you are incredulous, are you? Do you mean that there is no such maker or creator, or that in one sense there might be a maker of all these things but in another not? Do you see that there is a way in which you could make them all yourself? What way? An easy way enough; or rather, there are many ways in which the feat might be quickly and easily accomplished, none quicker than that of turning a mirror round and round –you would soon enough make the sun and the heavens, and the earth and yourself, and other animals and plants, and all the, other things of which we were just now speaking, in the mirror” (Plato, Book X). Plato explains the original creator as the blue print. Throughout life many blue prints are created but different experiences may make the image look depending on the person. The personal background of a person is an important factor because something one person may seem as pain may be beauty to another person’s eye. Plato explains it as the image changing but to me it makes the most sense to be explained as the depiction of the person alters the image presented. Plato also related the original creator being symbolized as God. I agree with Plato’s statement because I am a believer in God and it is common for Christians to believe that God gives us ideas to help us become successful throughout life. [Also it is common to believe that God plans a vision for your life and by being a believer in God you fulfill the plan that God has for you, which would explain the connection between Plato’s theory of a higher power creating the original copy of an idea and the Christian belief of following God’s layout for your individual self. Some people may believe that higher powers don’t exist and or that God is fake, which would also possibly mean that they would disagree with Plato’s theory that the original creator would be considered a higher power and or a God. Plato used the example of the use of a bed. Plato explained that beds and tables have specific purposes but there are other objects that serve the same purpose. Plato explains how the idea copycat only has slight modifications from the original idea. Art explained by Plato would be deceptive because of the modifications. The modifications made to art do not have to be true, but are still perceived by viewers and or the audience to be true. Personally, I believe the purpose of art is to be an expression of emotion from the artist. Some artist may use inspiration from outside sources and or people, so overall I would agree with Plato’a theory on how creations are copycats from an original creator. Art throughout history has been portrayed through many ways and many people and still may share the same commonalities. The inspiration that comes from the original creator creates a space for other artist to relate and build on to the original story. Modifications to me personally add character and complete the incomplete.

Throughout the reading William James explained how values can influence someone’s beliefs. Values to me personally do influence someone’s belief system because as humans we are taught to uphold certain values and if someone disagrees with those values we are not always taught how to think or believe different. James’ explained that there are certain options to believing someone and or something. Those options included living or dead, forced or avoidable, and momentous or trivial. “A living option is one in which both hypotheses are live ones. If I say to you: “Be a theosophist or be a Mohammedan,” it is probably a dead option, because for you neither hypothesis is likely to be alive. But if I say: “Be an agnostic or be a Christian,” it is otherwise: trained as you are, each hypothesis makes some appeal, however small, to your belief” (James, 1). The Living option is when both hypotheses are live. The living option can be similar to a really good bribe, it would make the person your asking not want to say no. Example: Would you like to go with me to the store if I buy you two lollipops and chips? “Either accept this truth or go without it,” I put on you a forced option, for there is no standing place outside of the alternative. Every dilemma based on a complete logical disjunction, with no possibility of not choosing, is an option of this forced kind” (James, 1). The Forced option includes no real option. The forced option is good for persuasive conversations because it leaves the person your asking with no real choice. The forced option uses common sense to persuade the other person and or party. Example: Wear your jacket or go without it. The forced option suggests the best outcome of the situation while still posing it as a possibility to do something better. “Per contra, the option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise. Such trivial options abound in the scientific life” (James, 1). The Momentous option is literally a once and a lifetime option. This option most likely will not be offered again and is not common. This option would be rare and would most likely not ever be presented again. The momentous option would also include a risk that would challenge that would make the option seem not so ideal. Example: Would you like to go on an all expense paid trip to Ghana to research the trauma of the slave dungeons and the beginning process of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, while being paid only if you agree to living in the safari with no supplies? After the reading, I can say that I agree more with Clifford’s theory rather than James’ theory. Personally I agree with Clifford more because with evidence it is easier to make conclusions because everything about the subject is presented. Evidence allows no space for emotion either because evidence makes it easier to make sense of situations and or circumstances. Evidence is important, but who produces the evidence is just as important. When evidence is present there is no space for any fallacies to be presented, therefore making Clifford’s argument more sound and valid to me.

To have knowledge about something is to know how to handle it in any circumstance.

2. People have a stronger sense of security when they are aware of what’s actually going on.

Conclusion: Evidence creates a stronger sense of security of knowledge and how to handle the situation in any circumstance.

Throughout reading Clifford’s arguments it was hard for me to find a fallacy because overall I agree with Clifford’s arguments. Clifford’s arguments were valid. Clifford’s arguments were sound. When I began reading I struggled to find a fallacy, but I did find one fallacy that stood out to me the most. The fallacy that stood out the most to me would be False Dilemma. Clifford’s argument overall is valid because it can be proven to be true. Both the conclusion and premises are true, so I would have to say that Clifford’s arguments are sound and valid. Personally, I agree with Clifford’s argument because knowledge to me is power. “Knowledge is Power,” this quote was stated by Francis Beacon. I was introduced to this quote in middle school by my eighth grade teacher Ms.Cantwell. Also my mother always told me as a child to educate myself because an education/knowledge is something that no one can ever take away from you. My mother has always been a big advocate for acquiring knowledge to sustain a better future. Throughout Black history knowledge is something that at times could make life more challenging and at times would be the only way out of a really bad situation, so valuing knowledge made Clifford’s agreement stand out to me. For Clifford’s second argument once I understood what he was saying, I automatically agreed to this statement. Having a sense of security is created when people are aware of the situation. Security comes from knowledge and how having knowledge of your surroundings or just about a situation can make a person feel safe. Clifford’s conclusion made his premises true, so I also believed that the conclusion was sound and valid. Clifford’s conclusion is common sense, if we don’t have knowledge or security we will lose our way as a people, a community, a nation, and even smaller coalitions and groups. “We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent. If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done by the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to do evil that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts” (Clifford, 6). This quote to me explained the key concept of the importance of having evidence present. When evidence is not present we are allowed to believe anything, even if that can be the thing to destroy us. Clifford explained that what we may believe in may also be the thing to help us improve. I can agree with Clifford because that mindset to me is kind of spontaneous. The example of stealing really resonates with me because I used to steal from stores a lot and not think that I was doing anything bad. But maturing and becoming an adult showed me that taking things that are not yours affects something somehow even if you may not see the direct effect of your actions. Hypothetically, if society became a den of thieves nothing would hold value. Everything that we believe in morally would equal nothing and that is what creates the importance of having evidence in everything we believe in. Evidence creates security of knowledge and that is what makes me agree with Clifford the most. “This sense of power is the highest and best of pleasures when the belief on which it is founded is a true belief, and has been fairly earned by investigation. For then we may justly feel that it is common property, and holds good for others as well as for ourselves. Then we may be glad, not that I have learned secrets by which I am safer and stronger, but that we men have got mastery over more of the world; and we shall be strong, not for ourselves, but in the name of Man and his strength. But if the belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by giving us a sense of power which we do not really possess, but it is sinful, because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind” (Clifford, 5). This quote further explains Clifford’s argument of why evidence is important when establishing beliefs. The quote explains why people feel satisfied when they endow new knowledge. Knowledge creates power and when people acquire more power it brings them happiness. Clifford explains receiving knowledge with no evidence as an injustice to mankind. I can agree with this statement because believing anything can create bad habits that a person may not fully understand because they are just living life with no real substance. Overall I agree with Clifford because evidence creates a sense of security that to me is vital when establishing values, morals, and beliefs. Clifford explained his arguments very clearly and his arguments were sound and valid.

Ad hominem: Earlene told Dr.Wills, the pediatrician, that he knew nothing about children because his body doesn’t produce children.

Begging the question: Smoking tobacco will kill you, tobacco is a murderer.

Appeal to consequence: If you do not go to church to worship God and read your bible, you will not go to heaven after you die.

Guilt by association: Takarra was going to stop eating meat, but then she read a book about how vegetarians are animal abusers and decided to still eat meat.

False Dilemma: Drink water daily to be healthy, fast, and alert or drink soda daily and be unhealthy, slow, and tired.

Slippery Slope: Don’t let Payton borrow $5, next she will have you paying her rent and all her utilities including the car note.

Gambler’s Fallacy: Carl and Earlene had 5 boys in a row, his next kid has to be a baby girl .

Post Hoc: The rugby team was losing every game until I bought this new mouth guard. This mouth guard is the reason the rugby team is winning and will win the championship game.

Poisoning the Well: Oh you are taking Professor Peters? He gave me the creeps, be careful there’s a lot of rumors about him.

Questionable cause: When I wake up I always hear the birds chirping, I must be the reason why the birds chirp every morning in my neighborhood.