Frankfurt begins his essay by pointing out that that there are two different forms of desire.  There are both what he calls “first-order desires” and “second-order desires.”  First-order desires or those in which someone desires to do or not do one thing or another.  On the other hand a second-order desire is a desire that entails reflective self-evaluation.

First order desires are not exclusive to human beings and in fact animals and other creatures have desires of the first order.  However, second order desires are exclusive to human begins but not all humans beings experience second order desires.  If a human being does not have second order desires then they are not considered a person in Frankfurt’s view.  A person who does not have second order desires is then in turn considered a wanton.  This groups of wantons according to Frankfurt includes all nonhuman animals, young children, and even some adult humans.  According to Frankfurt, a wanton is not considered a person because they have no second order desires.  The wanton does not care about his will and ultimately just goes through life not caring where he or she may end up.  There is no evidence that a wanton can not rationalize, they are just not concerned with the “desirability of his desires themselves.

To prove his case, Frankfurt gives an example of two drug addicts.  One drug addict has the first-order desire to take the drug because of the addiction, but also has a second-order desire to stop taking the drug, however the addiction may be too much to overcome.  On the other hand, the second drug addict again has the first desire order to take the drug, but has no second-order desire because they are not concerned where they ultimately end up.  For the second drug addict, he is not concerned about his will and to him both option of both taking the drug and quitting the drug are equal in his mind and one does not outweigh the other so he continues to use the drug.

Although I understand where Frankfurt is coming from with his argument I don’t think we can say that someone is not a person just because they do not have a will.  That individual still has emotions and feelings and to me is still a person.

W/C:385

Memento is a movie about a man named Leonard (Guy Pearce) who is trying to find the guy who raped and murdered his wife. Leonard has a hard time locating his wife’s killer is compounded by the fact that he suffers from a rare untreatable form of memory loss. He can recall details of life before his accident but can’t remember what happened fifteen minutes ago, where he’s going or why.

I believe that Hume would say that Leonard is no different than anyone else. Hume says that identity is just a habit and that is exactly what Leonard is doing. His habit is that he looks at his pictures, notes and tattoos to remember his memories. Leonard doesn’t want to remember the bad things about his wife’s death, but instead he wants to create a picture that shows someone else killing her and therefore giving him a reason to look for revenge. This is why our memories are not very reliable and why Hume says we do it out of habit. We are constantly trying to form memories to shape who we are, but we don’t want to base our self on impressions that do not “paint” a good picture. We need to constantly remind ourselves just who we are, and Leonard makes a good point when he says, “we all need mirrors to remind us of our self” because sometimes we get so caught up in other impressions that we tend to forget who we really are. I agree with Hume when he says that self impression is based off of memories, ideas, and impressions because when you think about it, people tend to judge you based on ideas and memories they are have of you that lead them to make impressions of who they think you are.

W/C:301

Hume believes that self is an illusion or a fiction because he believes that self is a collection of impressions that we make perceptions which we get from our thoughts and our senses. 

Hume states that “If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariable the same, through the whole course of our lives;”  He is saying that to know one self has to be a constant idea, therefore impressions must be constant as well.  The problem with impressions being constant is that they are subject to change as we grow and mature, therefore self cannot exist.  One minute we can be happy, and the next minute we may be sad and our impression has changed, a change in impression leads to a change in self.  “It cannot be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is obtained and consequently there is no such idea.”

Basically, what Hume is saying is self cannot exist when our thoughts and impressions are changing.  Identity is something that can be altered and changed as our perceptions and impressions change.  I agree with Hume that our perceptions and impression do change with time.  There were points in my life where I accepted certain things, and enjoyed certain activities, and today may find intolerable but it still doesn’t change who I am.  I believe identity remains constant from birth.

W/C:238

René Descartes (Latinized: Renatus Cartesius) was born 31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650. He was a French, Catholic 17th century philosopher, mathematician and writer. He is also jnown for his famous quote: Cogito ergo sum. I think,  therefor I am. Dubbed as the father of modern philosophy, he was the first to attempt using the scientific method in yhis field, hoping to advance the subject en par with other sciences.

Philosophy had been declining ever since medieval philosophy had ended with nominalism and skepticism. Wanting to advance philosophy, he decided to do something different and claimed to doubt the whole previous traditional knowledge left by his predecessors. His reason for this was his belief that in order to answer the skeptic, one must begin as a skeptic. In other words,  to prove something assume nothing. This was his method of doubt.

Descartes is seen as the person to have laid the foundation for continental rationalism in the 17th century. He is also seen as the founder of analytical geometry. His most notable works are Discourses on Methods and Meditations on First Philosophy.

Part 1:

The First Meditation, subtitled “What can be called into doubt,” opens with the Meditator reflecting on the number of falsehoods he has believed during his life and on the subsequent faultiness of the body of knowledge he has built up from these falsehoods. He has resolved to sweep away all he thinks he knows and to start again from the foundations, building up his knowledge once more on more certain grounds. He has seated himself alone, by the fire, free of all worries so that he can demolish his former opinions with care.

Part 2:

The Meditator tries to clarify precisely what this “I” is, this “thing that thinks.” He concludes that he is not only something that thinks, understands, and wills, but is also something that imagines and senses. After all, he may be dreaming or deceived by an evil demon, but he can still imagine things and he still seems to hear and see things. His sensory perceptions may not be right but they are certainly a part of the same mind that thinks.

I find his analysis pretty interesting because he is saying that were are basically living in a dream. And even if we weren’t there is no telling if we are or not. I think that doubt is always going to be part of being a human. I just feel like it makes us who we are. Descartes has believed that there is a lot of things that can be doubted.

https://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_descartes.html

W/C:426

Tolstoy like Plato, believed art is too important to be judged in terms of art alone. Because art is capable of making people better or worse, the social and morals of art must be considered in judgments about art.
Tolstoy believed that art was something that both the rich and the poor had the right to enjoy and for communities to unite. However, Tolstoy did not approve of many forms of art because it does not move us or because we are not touched by it. Tolstoy had several ideas and guidelines in which he utilized to consider what was really art and how to distinguish real art from “counterfeit” art.

There are three aspects for Tolstoy as to what infectiousness is composed of:

1. On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted
2. On the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is transmitted
3. On the sincerity of the artist; on the greater or lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he transmits

Tolstoy suggests that in order to test the infectiousness of art, we must judge our own feelings and reactions to art and if you are an appreciator you will know the feeling– if you can’t, it can’t be taught. It is an internal knowing, something only you can test for yourself. At least, that’s what I took from it, in reviewing line #26 in the reading. His comparison was, if you are colorblind you can no more appreciate green versus red than someone without an understanding of how good art feels versus someone who can.

I think this is the best approach to appreciating, understanding, and describing art thus far. I agree that the most meaningful and emotional artistic pieces are truly original, and that art loses its purpose after it is copied; or if it is created for purposes other than personal artistic expression. I agree that art is emotional, and each person’s reaction to art is personal and felt deeply, and if it isn’t it can’t be taught. You can try to teach someone how to look at and interpret good art, but it’s entirely up to them how deeply they commit to it and adopt that way of thinking.

W/C:370

The view that Aristotle had on the concept of art is opposite of what Plato said. Plato who taught that art is useless and potentially dangerous. Aristotle did not agree that he believed that art is not dangerous or useless. The word mimesis is derived from the Greek meaning imitation. By applying mimesis to art, implies that art, in its many forms, is merely a replication to something that already exists according to Plato.
Aristotle believed that Mimesis is not an imitation but more on the lines of representing or liking something. Mimesis is a topic that involves brains and a different perspective on things. Art requires the ability to use ones imagination and intellect. Aristotle implies that mimesis implies that humans can use reason and that humans learn through art which allows the ability to create.

Plato believed that the arts intrigued the passion in people, but Aristotle embraced this through tragedies. Aristotle primarily looked at tragedy as a mimesis as it is an action that is pretty serious. The action should be complete and have an effect in the audience. Tragedy brings catharsis through the emotions portrayed by the tragedy. Catharsis means cleansing or purification in Greek.

I chose this scene from Gridiron Gang to show Aristotle’s Catharsis theory because it brings the in the perfect feeling of fear and pity.

Just a quick summary of the movie and the scene above. The movie is about a juvenile detention center in LA that forms a football team. The kids all are coming from a different background. And Coach Porter ( Dwayne Johnson) has the task of teaching them how to work together and put their differences aside and come together as a team.

In the video above one of the main characters Willie Weathers belongs to the gang know as the 88’s. His teammate Kelvin Owens is from the rival gang known as the 95’s. Throughout the whole movie they dislike each other but then realize that the reason they dislike each other is stupid. Willie Weathers has a friend named “Free” he’s the 88’s gang leader and was like an older brother to Willie. After Kelvin’s and Willie’s game everyone goes on the field to congratulate them including Free. Free(88) then bumps into Kelvin(95) and starts shoving him. Kelvin starts shoving Free as well. After a couple of shoves Free pulls out a gun and shoot Kelvin. Kelvin then falls to the ground and right when Free is about to shoot Kelvin and Willie goes and tackles Free down so he wouldn’t kill Kelvin.

I relate this back to what Aristotle was saying because you can’t help but feel bad for Willie. Because he was put into a situation where he had to choose from betraying his gang and saving Kelvin or letting his teammate get killed that was starting to become more of a brother to him. He chose his friend Kelvin over his long time friend and gang leader Free. Everyone in the streets labels Willie as a traitor.

W/C:504

Existenz is a sci-fi film, directed by David Cronenberg in 1999. The movie begins with the introduction of a new virtual reality video game, called Existenz, that was created by a person named Allegra Geller. Allegra offers a test run of the new video game to a focus group who cannot wait to play the game. During the presentation of the game a person attempts to kill Allegra because she is wanted. Allegra survives and attempts to escape with a man named Ted Pikul, who is ordered to protect her because she is a valuable game designer and carries the only copy of Existenz. Throughout the movie both Allegra and Ted continue to escape any possible danger to the game all while experiencing mysterious events that leave the characters in the movie, and the audience watching the movie, to question what is the real reality.

Plato’s philosophy of The Allegory of the Cave basically states that our world is only filled with shadows of the the real thing.  We live in a world where we escape the forms, with ideas that represent the real world.  People are only fooled, that everything they see today is reality, but the real reality was here before we were all born.  When we were born, we were made to believe that everything we see is real.  We are too blinded by the world we live in, to see that we are only living in a world of shadows, and because our whole lives all we have seen are shadows, be cant comprehend the “real world.” Even at the glimpse of truth, or the outside of the cave, we choose to escape it, and run back to the inside of the cave, where all we see are the shadows we chose to be blinded by before.

People are intrigued with the video game because its an escape from reality. And to be honest that’t pretty relatable nowadays because that is how I feel sometimes when I play video games. Allegra is shy in real life but in the video game she takes on a whole other persona. Because of the video game she feels like she can solve or run away from her problems when in fact, shes only escaping them. At the beginning, Ted Pikul kept wanting to come back to his physical world because he was afraid of how little he knew about the world he was in. As they got deeper into Trancendenz, they became more confused by what they were experiencing. Each part brought them into a world that was more deceptive. When Ted and Allegra are in the game Ted starts to question everything. In the scene where Ted has to shoot the waiter but he does not feel comfortable doing it. Allegra tells him to stop fighting it. Ted ends up shooting the waiter. I can connect this to Plato’s theory because even though Ted is becoming aware or wants to escape back into the real world he is being pushed back to the virtual reality or the cave.

While Plato is creative in his argument, I personally do not agree with what he is saying. I believe that art can provide an outlet to our experiences, and can provide a different perspective. In any form of art,  individuals can obtain many different meanings from the same piece.

Overall the movie was really weird to me. Personally the movie was interesting but I didn’t like it. It made me uncomfortable in a way.

W/C:584

Plato talks about representation, using the image of a bed. He explains that when we talk about a bed, there are actually three beds. The first is the bed made by god. The second is the bed made by the carpenter and finally, the third bed is made by the painter. This is like a process God creates the original bed, the idea of a bed. The carpenter manufactures beds and the painter creates representations of the bed. This is a simple example used to demonstrate the point that Plato will go on to make.
The point of this illustration is that, according to Plato, the artist, or poet, only ever represents the thing that the other two have created. As it follows, the artist’s representation of the bed is at third removed from reality. If the representation is removed from reality then it cannot be an accurate picture. He thinks that art is changing reality into something it is not that the artist is basically making reality into what they want reality to be like and represent it in their form of art. This leads to making the viewer believe that the art created by that artist, is what it is in reality. 
I don’t agree with Plato because I believe that the art is what the painter or the spectator thinks or feels about it when they look at it. You will get a different feeling and interpretations off a painting.
 Deceptive wouldn’t be the word I would use. Because deceptive is basically saying that the painter wants you to think that his painting means one thing but it actually means another. When in fact as an individual you can have your own feelings towards a painting and feel a whole other way than what the painter felt.

W/C:301

In Clifford’s writings, The Ethics of Belief, he claims an overall thesis that a belief is not valid unless supported by some sort of sufficient evidence. Clifford makes it clear that people do not have the right to believe something if the evidence eludes them. throughout the essay he says that they had no right to believe on such evidence as was before them” while referring to two different stories within the text. Clifford also states that .To sum up it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. He argues that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford states that the question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of the ship owner‘s belief, not the matter of it not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him. Clifford therefore takes the position that it is unethical to accept as true any belief which has not been objectively verified, and in doing so he directly contradicts his own epistemological and moral arguments. The central point of Clifford‘s philosophy, that it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

W/C:226

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument.

1. Begging the Question: Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the hottest new gadget on the market!
2. Ad Hominem: Using someone’s education level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposers argument – “You didn’t even finish high school. How could you possibly know about this?”
3. Equivocation: I have the right to watch “The Real World.”  Therefore it’s right for me to watch the show.  So, I think I’ll watch this “Real World” marathon tonight instead of studying for my exam.
4. Slippery Slope: We can’t permit the sale of marijuana by doctor’s prescription, because that will lead people to believe it’s an acceptable drug; this will open the floodgates to the complete legalization of the drug for use by every pothead in the country.
5. Straw Man: Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless.
6. Tu Quoque: A political candidate’s position on abortion is attacked because in previous speeches, he took the other position.
7. Non-sequitur: I think I would make a good diplomat to China. I have a very good record in dealing with minorities.
   
8. False Dichotomy: Anti-vaccine person: Vaccines are so dangerous that you either support vaccines which means you hate children, or you’re against vaccines which means you love children.
   Pro-science: In fact, the adverse effects of vaccines are so small, and the risk of complications from vaccine preventable pathogens, the evidence supports the use of vaccines. The argument should be that the benefits far outweigh the risks so preventing disease is what is important.
9. Argument from Ignorance: Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.
10. Red Herring: When your mom gets your phone bill and you have gone over the limit, you begin talking to her about how hard your math class is and how well you did on a test today.
11. False Cause:
12. Watching TV that close will make you go blind, so move back!

Explanation: The false effect from watching TV too closely is going blind.  For the most part, the threat that you will “ruin” your eyesight is an old wives tale, but it does have some credibility based on modern studies, but almost certainly, nobody is going blind from sitting too close unless they ram their eyes into the protruding knobs.  Anyway, the conclusion, “so move back!” is not warranted by the false effect.

12. Double Standard: Husband: I forbid you to go to that male strip club! That is a completely inappropriate thing for a wife to do!

Wife: What about when you went to the female strip club last year?

Husband: That was just for fun, and besides, that’s different.

W/C:493