Does Altruism Really Exist?

I think the answer is clearly no. However, I am guessing some of you think otherwise. You should read the essay "Is Pure Altruism Possible?" by Judith Lichtenberg on "The Stone", which is a New York Times blog. I am sure you read the NYTimes regularly, or the Washington Post (both free online). If you don't, you should. At any rate, "The Stone" regularly features short essays written by actual well known professors of philosophy (like myself, albeit not as well known).

A question about altruism would be a great extra credit question on a quiz.  Just sayin'.

Just for your edification, here's what I think. I am of the Kantian/Freudian persuasion (as she charitably puts it).  That is, I think, if altruism is understood as action on behalf of others purely for the sake of others and not for self interest, than yes, it is impossible.  I reach this conclusion because it seems that people are always motivated by multiple (self-)interests or desires (depending on your Kantian or Freudian persuasion) and those interest or desires are never completely clear to us.  Thus, if it is possible that there are other interests or desires motivating us, we cannot be acting purely for sake of others.

I don't think that is a problem.  I don't know why people should have to act only for the sake of others in order for their actions to have moral or ethical worth.  On the other hand, I am also not concerned that all actions are necessarily egoistic, and this because our own interests are frequently bound up with the interests of others.

Even if all actions were completely egoistic, it seems like frequently there would be actions ethically or morally significant in terms of their consequences.  For example, I think that public libraries are a vital social and cultural good and the charity that supports them is ethically laudable.  Thus, even if a blue blood donates to this charity wholly because of the cachet it may give him or her in the neighborhood where he or she lives, that still seems to be ethically laudable action, and so because of its consequences (the maintenance of public libraries).

All right, back to grading.  See you later today.

Physic

In the book of Physics, written by Aristotle. He talks about nature, cause and chance, teleology and necessity in nature. I was intrigued by the first two pages, where he talks about nature and form. In his introduction he talks about this idea, all natural objects being the substances. First let's talk about what he thinks to be the nature.
In the first paragraph Aristotle stated: " among thing that are, some are natural, others are due to other causes. Those that are natural are animal in their parts, plants in the simple bodies, such as earth, fire and water; for we say that these things and things of this sort are natural. All these things are evidently different from things not naturally constituted; for each of them has in itself an origin of change and stability, whether in place, or growth and decay or alteration".
When I think about it, what he says, make sense and i agree. I interpret it to be, things that when we human beings came on earth, we've seen many unexplainable things. Such as trees, animals etc. All these things we have no clue, on how they ended up being in this planet are consider to be natural. therefore nature are things we don't know the origin. He later says whatever has a nature is a substance. I think is right, for example: a substance is like a molecule in human body, without this molecule we wouldn't be human, and i think it's the same for nature. Without this substance there would'nt be nature according to Aristotle. Also he thinks that form is nature. I agree, because for something to be call nature, it needs a form or it has to have a form first, for example: a tree, would not be a tree if it didn't have the form. therefore according to Aristotle. so therefore the form plays an important role than the nature itself. The form precedes nature. that's why i believe he stated: " the form is nature more than the matter is ". Matter for Aristotle i think is what is actually is, for example: when we plant an apple tree, the result will be the same thing that was originally planted. According to Aristotle the apple is not the origin. It's being nothing more than what it really is.

Science or Scripture?

Summa Theologica is a discussion of the components of religion. According to Aquinas, "... things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man though his reason, nevertheless, what is revealed by God must be accepted through faith" (386). His discussion tackles the idea that religion can not be classified only in one category and must consist of both to make sense. I agree with this idea and definitely think that small parts are gathered together in this case to make up an entire idea. When taken just as parts, each one is significant for its own reasons but isn't as powerful as the end result. Each article he presents a different idea that is subsequently tackled to be shut down. He says things like, “It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science, for a practical science is that which ends in action, according to the Philosopher” (388). In the first quote we assume he is siding with a philosophical stand point, we move down to the second and realize that the complete opposite is stated here. There is no side taken by Aquinas because he is pushing for the idea that they can not exist for the purpose of doctrine separately. This is like the idea that language is a sum of its parts. Words mean one thing on their own but when placed into a context their meaning may or may not change. Here we have a repeated mention of how technical science is and very close behind it we are convinced about how scriptures and doctrines were written by people who were only capable of thinking scientifically and therefore have to have meaning behind it all. I think that because he constantly repeats ideas he supports, he wants his reader to focus on that which is key, not just the body of the text.

Is it all just luck?

In “Book II: Physics,” Aristotle talks about the nature of things and how they change. According to him they change because of four causes: material, formal, efficient & final. In section 4, titled “Luck and Chance,” (Pg.207) he discusses how luck and chance are said to be causes, and what exactly they are. The passage that interested me was the one titled “Doubts about the existence of luck.” In it he says that some people wonder whether or not luck exits because nothing results from it. Anything that is said to result from it has a “cause.” He gives the example of a man going to a marketplace and meeting another man that coincidently he wanted to meet but did not expect at this time. The “cause” was the man wishing to go to the market.
So, does luck exist or not? Yes but not as a “cause”. In fact Aristotle says that luck stems from events that nature itself may have cause. While reading this passage I was reminded of Spinoza, and how a mere coincidence can cause an entire belief in superstitions. Since fear causes irrational behavior, superstitions (that stem from fear) are irrational beliefs that something good will happen only if you follow a certain ritual. The fact that something good does happen is a coincidence. There is nothing that proves that the opposite could have equally happened. What does this have to do with luck?
Well, luck defined is good or bad fortune caused by accident or chance and is also associated with faith or superstition. Since luck is basically coincidences it cannot be thought of as a cause of anything in nature, seeing as how things in nature did not happen as just a coincidence. Right before the end of this section on luck and chance (Pg. 211 paragraph “How luck and chance are…”) Aristotle himself says that the mind and nature must be prior causes of many things in this universe and chance and luck are posterior.

Categories, Aristotle

In his treatise Categories Aristotle breaks down the function of words in relation to each other. He defines language in terms of primary substances, species and genus. In terms of meaning, on can associate the intelligibles and perceptibles that Al-Farabi wrote of to the primary substances and to the species and genus, respectively. The primary substances are subjects and all other entities depend on them, there wouldn’t be species or genus without primary substances. Aristotle’s analysis of language is also a reflection of how reality is simply a creation; random words, assigned to elements of the universe, define our existence. This reading was overall boring and difficult but Aristotle reveals his thought process most lucidly in the paragraph entitled There Are Ten Kinds Of Beings. Here he identifies the various types of primary substances said without combining other words. These beings are, “substance or quantity or quality or relative or where or when or being in a position or having or acting on or being affected.” Aristotle also writes that in order for these primary substances to be true or false, that is, to have affirmation, they must be combined with other words. This begs the question; does combination affirm the existence of some being because it makes it true or false? Is man just being called man not enough confirmation of his existence?

Grow Up! Immaturity prevents Enlightenment

In the reading “What is Enlightenment ?” by Kant is based upon the idea of enlightenment and what prevents a man from achieving it. “Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.”(p.54, 1^st paragraph) When we think immature we think, people acting like little kids. That’s why we tell people act your own age. Kant specifically thinks immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without guidance from another.(p.54, 1^st paragraph) Kant believes that immaturity is one of the first steps in order to achieve enlightenment. If one doesn’t get the courage in order to speak out against things they believe than they are still immature. He believes a man should use their own understanding when doing things and listening to things. A man shouldn’t have to listen to other people when it comes to making a decision but in reality just rely on themselves. It is very hard to become mature according to Kant because 1. There are many people who already tell us what to do and 2. There are ways is which we can’t speak what we believe.

“It is so convenient to be immature.”(p.54, 2^nd paragraph) Now why is it so convenient? There are many professionals out there who have taken the job over us as a person. We have doctors, spiritual advisors, and authors who write books. Basically, as long as we have money we need not to think for our self. Now imagine this was back than he was saying all this, imagine now. Now he must think the world as a whole is completely immature. Our world has prospered since his time. The problem is now we have a lot more resources. We have a doctor for everything; we have maids, teachers, religious leaders, and much more. One other thing we have is the internet. The internet allows us to put whatever we like in like Google and get answers for it. So, are we still in this day immature and have we not had an “enlightenment?”

Kant believes that in order to achieve enlightenment, “all that is needed is freedom.”(p55, 2^nd paragraph) He believes freedom of speech and freedom to question or two very important aspects in order to achieve enlightenment. The reason for this is because if a person is able to question what another person says that means they’re thinking for themselves. They are no longer just going along what other people have to say but questioning so they can come up with their own belief. The one problem that comes up though, is how to do that when if someone tries to question authority they get in trouble or put in jail. In his time this was very hard. Kant knows there are restrictions everywhere but he believes that there are only certain restrictions that prevent enlightenment. I agree, you can disagree with a certain person but, you have to obey.

Lastly, Kant believes that religion is a focal point in achieving enlightenment. “rulers have no interests in assuming the role of guardians over their subjects so far as the arts and sciences are concerned, and secondly because religious immaturity is the most pernicious and dishonorable variety of all.”(p.59, paragraph 1) Now is the second statement true? Is religious immaturity the most dishonorable? I believe that it can be but, not in all cases. People are grown in to a certain belief. It is their choice whether they continue believing on it or not. Well this is in our time at least. We have the choice whether to leave or not

Kant believes that there are a lot of things preventing enlightenment and I agree. I only agree in his time. In today’s age and time that is not true. We have the freedom to say what we like we just must obey. If there weren’t rules there would be many immature people. Kant would probably agree.

Kant, " What is Enlightenment?"

In the reading, “What is Enlightenment?” by Kant is based upon the “… freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters (p.55, 3^rd paragraph).” This quote taken by the reading is something that one needs to ask them self, what does this mean? After reading Kant’s ideas several times one begins to have an understanding of what he thought society was doing and what they could achieve. Kant’s idea of “public use” will help a man to break through his immaturity and at the end would want to gain a kind of enlightenment, to produce their own way of thinking (p. 54-55). As one continues reading the break down and later the break through of his ideas are established.

Kant understands that everyone who has reached that level of maturity doesn’t need the guidance of anyone to say what they want. But at the same time they have limited freedom when belonging to a certain institution. In his writing he gives a couple examples of this such as, “… the officer receiving an order…” also “… the citizen cannot refuse to pay taxes…” and for Kant the important one “… clergyman is bound to instruct his pupils and his congregation in accordance with the doctrines…(p.56)” These were all examples he gave relating to different people having the same kind of law they must obey which was to do what was said of them. He stated a kind of slogan that kept people in line; which was to, “ Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey! (p. 55 and p. 59).” This basically meant that you were free to say whatever you wanted but there were limits and also says that only a certain kind of limits can prevent enlightenment (p.55 at the bottom). It’s more of a hard decision than an easier one because your not really sure how far you can go with your own ideas. He than continues to state that if one uses their thoughts, and it’s all right to do so, than one would be able to get to reach enlightenment (p.55).

The main example given about the clergyman is something that must be mentioned thoroughly. The clergyman’s position is at a level of already authority to the church and what he preaches can contain certain thoughts that may not always agree with the doctrines that are already written (p.56). One would think, what would happen if this authority figure doesn’t always agree with everything that is written? This question was easily answered as one continues to read because he than mentions if the clergyman doesn’t agree with the meaning of religion and decides to preach it than he isn’t fulfilling his duties and should instead quit his job (p.56- 57). Kant’s answer regarding the “public use” in this case made one realize that his logic on letting one express their thoughts is to be able to be free to say anything but just not passing boundaries.