Reflection on Hagel VS Marx debate

I was on the Hagel team but found flaws in both arguments.  Thought capitalism can be a good form of an economical system but has to be regulated  based the states current conditions. Under Capitalist conditions workers will inevitably lose control of their lives by losing control over their work, humans cannot pursue their happiness under the conditions of purely capitalist  societies. Hegel is in my opinion overly idealistic. He doesn't make sense of how the material world in the capitalist system have affected history. The idea that  the universal spirit is what drives human history is a bit to simplistic (perhaps the only simplistic part of Hagel). What really drives human history is hard to define to Marx it might class struggles, to a religious man it might be God, or the institutions of religions (some say religion is the cause of all wars) to others human determination and ambition drives history whether is be for better or worse (the idea of the American Dream is based on the idea that hard work and self motivation equal success). However Marx is also very  idealistic in the outcomes of his theories, I think that humans have drive and the will to improve current conditions. Human nature itself makes the utopian idea of Communism impossible. I think that a lots of their philosophy is very similar, with some differences. And as people who can read and study their philosophies we can take the good points they each make and somehow each as philosophy students make our own philosophy on how societies function and how to improve them. 

Draft of Song I was working on before deciding on Kesha

A true philosopher cannot be

 in a place like Athens

No matter how hard you may try, a pest is all they see

Poor Socrates

More than a philosopher you may be a prophet

For like you said

A philosopher will only be seen as a mad men

Now you’re sentenced to die.



and yet no apology,

you maintain your ideology?


why oh Socrates?

You’re no god.

However
It is better to suffer than to do injustice, you stick to your beliefs

And us like cowards simply agree

Yet the trial is for you, not I.


Unjust?

According to Socrates a man is unjust if he is not fulfilling his function “assigned job”. However what if a man works in a job he is not meant to, but does it for security, family, bills or any other factors that may go in to a job. Can we really call this man unjust? If a man works hard even in a job that he is not meant to work in is the man really unjust? Is he not only searching for his means of survival? Socrates himself stated that those meant to be philosophers abandon their calling because they live in a society where they are seen as mad or useless. Is the true philosopher unjust for simple looking to find a relevant tecne within his own society? 

Functions

In my stars I am above thee; but be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.


                                    -From Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, 1602:
I agree with Socrates in that certain individuals are born with roles and some are meant to be leaders or in his terms Gaurdians. However, is life really so technical? That all of us are assigned functions, never free to explore other passions? No, I think that some are meant to be leaders, young Napoleon would play with toy soldiers and create intricate battle plans. However in life individuals are able to achive greatness and move from there assigned position. Frederick Douglas was born a slave, he would trade food for reading, he was bright and eventually became one of the biggest advocates abolition.  Others are called to certain tasks. Che Guevara studied to be a doctor, he came from a wealthy family, one motor cycle ride changed his function and destiny. He saw the poverty of the masses and knew he had to act. Manny dislike him others idealize him, but no matter what your opinion, one has to admire his ability to leave behind his wealthy and secure life to fight for something he felt was wrong. 

Paper

The extensive possibilities in one blank of paper are unimaginable. Where would we be with out ideas, poetry, literature, arithmetic and art. Yes some of the listed items could exist with out paper, but for how long?  Paper empty and white with nothing at all can be everything you could ever think of. Is being remembered not what we all strive for? Humans like money, power and success. But why? in the end don't we all want a legacy something to leave behind, weather it be big or small we all have the need to exist and to be recognized by each other. I agree with  Hegel, we all need some other being to exist. If  no one has a memory of you, if no one knows your name if no one knows what you did if no one ever reads about you, do you really exist. I'm not saying that we need to be famous to exist its as simple as one other person animal or plant acknowledging you. If you plant a three well then that three becomes proof of your existence. If you write a book then other will read your thoughts, and if you have child then you live one in them. We all impact our world, as individuals we can choose in what ways we do.  

Kierkegaard

In reflection about both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard each have different methods for thinking when it comes to the human condition, with Nietzsche thinking of the Will to Power and Kierkegaard thinking about his atheistic, and faith stages "the teleological suspension of the ethical". However I found the ways they understand this things are not opposites. Nietzsche tends to focus on the present and how to find fulfillment as a human, Kierkegaard focuses on attempting to escape this suffering through religion. I found that Nietzsche's argument seemed more reasonable but that Kierkegaard's argument was more applicable. Faith is important to groups of people around the world. It doesn't matter whether his theory is correct, the idea that one can scape their troublesome life through faith is appealing and in some odd way more realistic than following ones own desires. Faith gives many a motivation to live, the idea that there is soemthing bigger than you and that your individual life has value. Though I found Nietzsche's philosophy more convincing and reasonable, it also seems depressing. Kierkegaard's philosophy didn't really contain much reasoning or facts but it seemed "nice" the idea that all we need to do is trust in a higher power, I found it comforting and interesting, though I don't know if I could ever reach the highest state of any of these philosophies.

Time

Time tends to be an abstract idea. I'm very used to having things scheduled recently I realized about how ridiculous it is to have to schedule time to rest or relax. I like the idea of will to power, I don't think i'll ever be able to achieve it but recently it keeps popping into my head. SAT subject tests, extended essay, CAS, and college apps, and extra curricular activities all seem to be taking most of my time. I cant remember the last time i just rested, rested without having to plan it. I keep waiting for break, I tell myself it'll be a good time to catch up. It seems that thats what human life consists of, catching up. Trying to keep your head above the water, knowing that floating would just be easier. Drive doesn't seem to lack many, everyone has a purpose. I keep thinking about  Nietzsche, now did he go insane. When did the world stop making sense, or perhaps to much sense. Why must we make sense of everything, aren't some things best left to belief. Belief, Religion,imagination and literature our one escape away from our life. This is why I like dreams, I see them as moments of suspended reality or,a reality in their own right. I mostly rambled in this post, I don't really know what  the purpose was or if it even had one.

Hegel Questions (worked with Nataly Montaño).

1.     -Consciousness is the recognition of one another; self-recognition is the realization of others and in turn our own recognition. Humans have a desire to be recognized and therefore achieve consciousness.

2.     -Because we are conscious we are meant to be social and a political beings. Descartes said “I think therefore I am”  Once we achieve  the reality of our consciousness we can then identify ourselves as individuals within a larger group or unity.

3.     -Sensuous Certainty: the form of consciousness that takes itself to be aware of the simple, immediate presence of things.

-Absolute Knowing: Logical knowing which is developed from Sensuous Certainty.

4.     -“This, here, now” Complex union of different times and stages, which stretch back to different  “here, this and now”. This three words are simple ways to express this complex set of times and instances.  Hegel proposes that perception grasps objects as part of this union of many here’s and now’s, but it cant be determined where in its multiplicity it stands.

5.     -Our perception can distinguish between the inner unities of an object but when it recognizes this, it then becomes an understanding instead of a perception. Understating of this inner unity then makes it distinct from us and therefore follows its own reason and laws in life. Our understanding of this subject is not only our consciousness of objects but also our self-consciousness, because we can understand the qualities of an object that makes it itself.

6.     -As conscious individuals we enjoy ourselves through other objects that have their own separate consciousness but enjoy themselves through us.

7.     -Humans are able to enjoy themselves because of each of our self-conscious, and we can reach self-satisfaction when other is able to recognize our selves.

8.     -Hegel states that conflict will not arise in the dependency of our self-consciousness, however because we rely on others to achieve our recognition it should create conflicts.

9.     -Intersubjectivity is not a realistic idea HOWEVER it must take place for social interaction to happen.

10.  -For humans to be able to recognize their being others must be able to consciously recognizes others separate beings therefore solidifies our own existence. 

Who can claim Antigone?

Antigone dies a martyr, one who was ready and willing to die standing up to what she saw as not only an unjust law in the city but a violation of one the her faiths rituals. Because of her love for her family Antigone wanted to give her brother a proper burial, he respected him. She believed that the dead were in a state of equality. She is able to stay true to her beliefs, while Creon is forced to change based on pressure from external forces. Creon is dedicated to his duty as king, while Antigone makes decisions based on human values and faith, regardless of all other factors.  

The primal will, is fundamental to a human being, because it is the will of choice. Antigone assesses her situation and then makes a choice based on her beliefs and morality . Her faith allows her to tress-pass t a child's will, this is the will to survive, she wants to live however realizes that there is something bigger than her, she commits the crime because she has the need to carry out her faith and bury her brother. The final is the will to power. Now here is where we have to be clear. Nietzsche argues that this will is the essential driving force behind our existence. That this is literally why we live, rather than my the previously mentioned wills which give us the motives to survive and the ability to reason R. The will to power is the will to embrace our to further elevate us in this world. To accept our passions and desires and to go above the law like Antigone did in order to please our own values and beliefs. Everyone is seeking elevation. Antigone did it not through her death or her faith but because of because of her ability to trespass societies rules and expectations and follow her own passions and urges  to her as and individual it was her faith and duty not to anyone else but toward her own ideals.  she gave her life for her ideals but in doing so followed her own ethics.

Hume vs. Descartes

Descartes, a rationalist, said that each person can look for  truth .   Finding truth and knowledge comes from the individual themselves, not necessarily from God.  Reason is the same for every single person.  He also stated that the idea of “perfect” originated from God , God himself was perfect and therefore couldn’t deceive.   Descartes also applied doubt to his ideas before he granted complete certainty to them.   

However it can be argued that  our ideas are not innate but derived from experience of perceptions.  Humans learned through impressions and if there are no impressions then there are no ideas. Every individuals perceptions are his alone. Therefore truth is what one perceives it to be.  Reason is important but it derives from our senses, the sun will rise tomorrow. Our senses and experience tell us this and although its not certain that it ll rise tomorrow it is true today. One can only reason what one knows.
As for God, if we cant see him or feel him if we have no indication of his existence can never be a “truth”. AS for God being no deceiver. Who created us and gave us reason showing  that my ideas come from external things.
And that the idea of a perfect entity must have come from the perfect entity itself. Is nothing but a circular argument, that rejects both senses and reason.
With out our sences reason could not exist, how couldn't we ever “doubt” our surrounding if we couldn't perceive them. For reason to start we must have our senses.

Heraclitus vs. Parmenides

Parmenides stated that sense perception alone could reveal the truth about things? The mind could never reconstruct the truth out of the sensory data. There is no one way our senses can be manipulated to achieve a coherent truth. A distinction between appearance and reality must be made to find truth. Our perceptions are the effects of causes that we cant directly perceive and which we can know only by inference. 
Inference can’t be called “truth”.

Truth must consist just of information which can be acquired by mind alone, and ONLY THE MIND, uncontaminated by sensory information. Pure reasoning, allows one to gain knowledge. A truth is a proposal to which our reasoning allows us to conclude. Beliefs cannot constitute knowledge because it can compete with other beliefs, and not all those beliefs can be false. Perception and senses are also unique to individuals. We will never know how other perceive the world and therefore what is true for us can be different from their “truth”. However every human has the ability to reason and therefore to reason we can all reach a consensus.