Apr 18: What is Good?

Philosophers are often chided by non-philosophers for their penchant to ask seemingly simplistic questions and then try to answer them abstractly and at length.  I admit that this is certainly true in many cases, even perhaps this one.  There may be an element of language getting in the way here, since words can have vague or multiple meanings  depending on usage or circumstance, and simple words have a comfortable sort of "We all know what this means" kind of feeling to them.  What is Good, or what is the good in any situation sounds simplistic at first hearing, but dissection and discussion will tease out nuances that are not just interesting but will prove to be importantly foundational to a person's entire philosophical perspective once they are understood.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle famously disagreed about the value of knowing what is the Good in any particular situation.  Socrates/Plato believed that if a man would know the good way to behave or act in relation to some situation the man (or person) would do the good thing, just because it was the right thing to do.  Knowledge of the Good would lead to actions in accord with the Good, for the obvious reason that we all seek to live in harmony with one another, and harmony is Good.   Seeking understanding of the Good, and Duty, and Harmony were what Socrates was all about as he "corrupted" the youth of Athens with his constant questioning and dialectic discussions.

Aristotle was not so positive in his outlook.  He believed that just knowing the good was not enough.  Rather, the individual would also need to see how doing the good or right thing was going to benefit him or her in some way.  He added the need for personal reward for good behavior or action, if not for the individual directly, but also perhaps for society in general, or in the long run, or by some other tangible means.  Abstractly knowing the Good was fine and all that, but putting that knowledge into action required something more, like motivation to do and support the Good for more than altruistic reasons.  Call it putting the Good into context, or maybe making it personal, Aristotle seemed to start from a position of knowledge more than Socrates might have, which makes sense considering Socrates trained Plato, who trained Aristotle.  

I would also note that Plato liked to talk about the Forms of things, which were somehow foundational essences that contained a pattern of a thing.  It might be clearer to consider a chair as an example.  Chairs come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, but they all have a similar essence we can all see and understand.  Can a rock be a chair?  Yes, certainly.   Can a table be a chair?  Not really.  A table is different than a chair, even if someone sits on one.  A table's essence is different than a chair's essence.  Their Forms are different.  The Good also has an underlying Form, Plato would argue, with many ways to be expressed in physical manifestations, in acts or deeds, in interpersonal relations, and so on.  The Good becomes the basis of ethics, for example.  The question of, "What is ethical?" is answered when we can determine the underlying Good condition or outcome in any ethical situation.   

For our meeting this week I suggest we take a few minutes to talk about Forms and abstract essences in general, then hone in on the Form of the Good, sharing examples where finding and understanding the Good took time and effort.   Do we normally think in terms of what is good in any particular situation, or when making a decision?  Is Goodness so ingrained within us that we "just know" what it is?  Do we recognize it when we see it?  Or do we only recognize that Goodness is lacking when we see something we have a reaction to? 

Apr 4: What is a Personal Philosophy?

As people move through life they have experiences that are both positive and negative in terms of their impact on memories and feelings about the past.  We have come to think of very bad experiences as the basis of lasting stress in people's minds, and these stresses can be diagnosed as post traumatic stress disorder, among others, and can result in a medically supported diagnosis that can be medically treated.   Most people have stresses in their lives that may not be or have been as severe as to cause a medical diagnosis, and we may call these normal, and just remain as the stresses we have to learn to live with.  The role of philosophy, especially the development of a personal philosophy based on our experiences, provides a framework each of us can use to interpret the stresses and strains that life throws our way to smooth the turbulent waters we all find ourselves in.  Please provide a short essay on how this all fits together to be used as a starting point for a discussion about the big Questions of philosophy.  <Des> 

<Gemini AI>  The human experience is a tapestry woven with threads of joy and sorrow, triumph and tribulation. While extreme trauma can fracture the psyche, leading to clinically diagnosed disorders like PTSD, the everyday stresses and strains of life also leave their mark. These "normal" stresses, though less severe, can still create ripples of unease, shaping our perceptions and influencing our actions. It is within this complex landscape of lived experience that philosophy emerges as a powerful tool for navigating life's turbulent waters.

The development of a personal philosophy, informed by our unique encounters with the world, provides a framework for interpreting these stresses. It offers a lens through which we can examine our reactions, challenge our assumptions, and cultivate resilience. This framework is not a static set of rules, but rather a dynamic and evolving understanding of ourselves and our place within the grand scheme of existence.

Consider the Stoic emphasis on acceptance. By recognizing that some things are beyond our control, we can learn to detach ourselves from the emotional turmoil that arises from resisting the inevitable. Or perhaps we find solace in the existentialist assertion of individual freedom, empowering us to create meaning in a seemingly absurd world. The ethical frameworks of virtue ethics or utilitarianism can guide our decisions, helping us navigate moral dilemmas with greater clarity.

Philosophy, in essence, invites us to engage with the "big questions" of existence: What is the meaning of life? What is the nature of reality? How should we live? These questions, though seemingly abstract, are deeply intertwined with our everyday experiences. By grappling with them, we can gain a deeper understanding of our own values, beliefs, and purpose.

The process of philosophical inquiry is not about finding definitive answers, but rather about cultivating a mindset of critical thinking and self-reflection. It is about embracing the ambiguity of existence and finding meaning within the ever-shifting currents of life. This process is not a substitute for medical treatment when it is needed, but it can be a powerful tool for building resilience and finding peace.

As we move through life, our experiences, both positive and negative, shape our philosophical framework. This framework, in turn, helps us interpret and manage the stresses we encounter, creating a feedback loop that fosters personal growth and resilience. Thus, the interplay between lived experience and philosophical inquiry provides a pathway to navigating the complexities of human existence, smoothing the turbulent waters we all find ourselves in, and ultimately, finding meaning in a world that often seems to defy easy answers.<End>

<Des>  Compare and contrast the fields of philosophy, psychology, and psychiatry. It would seem that philosophy deals with the normal vicissitudes of life through questioning, examination, and introspection. Psychiatry may deal with specific traumatic incidents that people don't normally have the tools to deal with on their own. Psychology is the study of the many and various mental states humans have and tried to put them into a contact where they can be dealt with. Do I have this right?

Lake Huron and Superior: Two Lakes

Pandora Song Playback Limitations

Can you prepare a map of northern Idaho and Washington showing golf courses that could be played if a group of 4 golfers were staying in the Post Falls area? Can you also prepare a list of these courses, with greens fees for senior golfers (over 65 years old)?

Reacher Investigates Army Unit Murders

Accessing Google Docs

Listening to Seattle Sports Radio

what's core weave stock value

Family Vacation Planning App Recommendations

What Would You Like To Play?

Building Bat Houses For Bats

Film Camera to Digital Conversion Options

Directions Home

Salish Origin Stories Explored

Conversation with Gemini

Are Lake Huron and Lake superior actually 2 lakes, or just one?

Lake Superior and Lake Huron are two distinct lakes, separated by the St. Marys River, which includes the Soo Locks. They are not one continuous body of water like Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are.

---

Key Differences Between the Lakes

The primary difference between Lake Superior and Lake Huron is their elevation. Lake Superior sits at a higher elevation—specifically, 21 feet higher—than Lake Huron. This elevation difference creates a natural, one-way flow of water from Lake Superior down the St. Marys River and into Lake Huron. The locks were built to allow large ships to navigate this difference in elevation, bypassing the natural rapids in the river.

In contrast, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are at the same elevation and are connected by the deep, open Straits of Mackinac. This makes them a single, continuous body of water from a hydrological standpoint, and water can flow in both directions between them. While they are culturally and geographically recognized as two separate lakes, they are often referred to by scientists as Lake Michigan-Huron.

Philosophers have studied child development with respect to the appearance of language without outside influence, and basic traits of character if babies are raised in an environment where good and evil values are not judged or controlled. How has this worked out in terms of favoring one type of behavior, or with the development of a spontaneous language?

In philosophical thought and developmental psychology, the idea of studying children raised in isolation—without external influence on language or moral values—is often explored through "feral children" cases. These real-world, albeit tragic and rare, instances provide a glimpse into the outcomes of such an environment. The findings consistently show that a lack of outside influence is not conducive to the development of either spontaneous language or "good" behavior.

---

The Development of Language

There's no evidence that children spontaneously create a new language in isolation. Instead, the cases of feral children demonstrate a critical period for language acquisition.

• No Spontaneous Language: Children raised without human contact do not invent their own spoken language. Instead, they often communicate through grunts, gestures, or animal-like sounds they may have learned from their environment (e.g., from animals they lived with).

• Difficulty Learning Later: After they are found, these children have immense difficulty learning to speak a human language. They may learn some words, but they struggle to grasp grammar and syntax, supporting the theory that certain brain functions essential for language must be stimulated during early development.

• Theories of Language Acquisition: This evidence strongly supports Noam Chomsky's theory of a universal grammar and the idea that while the capacity for language is innate, it must be activated by exposure to a language during a critical window of development. Without this social input, the ability to acquire language seems to be lost.

---

The Development of Character

Similarly, a lack of social and moral influence does not lead to a "pure" or "spontaneous" set of moral values. Instead, it seems to result in behavior that is entirely shaped by the survival instincts of their isolation.

• No Inherent Morality: The cases of feral children do not favor one type of behavior—good or evil—in the absence of judgment. Instead, these children often exhibit a lack of social and emotional understanding. They may be withdrawn, aggressive, and lack empathy, as they have never been taught or shown how to interact with others in a social context.

• Behavioral Traits: Their actions are often driven by immediate needs, such as a desire for food or self-preservation, without any consideration for others. They lack the social skills and norms that we learn from a young age, such as sharing, cooperation, and understanding consequences.

• Nature vs. Nurture: This provides a powerful argument against the "blank slate" (tabula rasa) theory, which suggests that a person's character is entirely shaped by their environment. While the environment is crucial, these cases suggest that humans have a biological predisposition for social interaction that is necessary for the development of both language and a moral framework. Without it, development is severely stunted.

Compare and contrast the fields of philosophy, psychology, and psychiatry. It would seem that philosophy deals with the normal vicissitudes of life through questioning, examination, and introspection. Psychiatry may deal with specific traumatic incidents that people don't normally have the tools to deal with on their own. Psychology is the study of the many and various mental states humans have and tried to put them into a contact where they can be dealt with. Do I have this right?

<Gemini>  lThat's a great way to start, but there's a more precise way to distinguish these fields. You've correctly identified some core functions, but the key differences lie in their foundational approach, methodology, and scope of practice.

Philosophy

Your description of philosophy as dealing with the "normal vicissitudes of life through questioning, examination, and introspection" is a good starting point. However, philosophy is much broader. It's the love of wisdom and the systematic study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Its approach is conceptual and abstract, using logic, critical thinking, and thought experiments to explore what it means to be human and what constitutes a good life. It sets the groundwork for the other two fields by asking the "why" and "what if" questions that modern science later tries to answer empirically.

---

Psychology

You're right that psychology is the study of mental states, but its key differentiator from philosophy is that it's a science. Psychology uses the scientific method to study the mind and behavior. It's an empirical field, meaning it relies on observation, experimentation, and data to form conclusions about cognitive, emotional, and social processes. A psychologist's role is not just to "put them into a context," but to assess, diagnose, and treat mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders using evidence-based therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and psychoanalysis. Psychologists typically earn a Ph.D. or Psy.D. and cannot prescribe medication.

---

Psychiatry

Your understanding of psychiatry dealing with "specific traumatic incidents" is a bit narrow. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine focused on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illnesses. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor (M.D. or D.O.) who has specialized in mental health. Their unique role is to consider the biological and neurological aspects of mental illness. This medical training allows them to prescribe medication and, in some cases, perform other medical treatments like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While many psychiatrists use psychotherapy (talk therapy), their practice often centers on the medical management of conditions like major depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. They deal with conditions that have a significant biological component and may require medication to be managed effectively.