Albert Camus

So, two minutes wasn't enough for me to explain "The Rebel" fully. Yet, on the bright side I can go over "The Rebel" on this post!

I'll review: Albert Camus' theory states that there are two realms, the Sacrosanct realm (the christian who believes in the after life) and the realm of the rebel. The realm of the rebel is one of two possible options in the last stage of the absurdist process. The absurd is the ever longing search for the meaning of life, and the lack of the of an answer. The absurdist takes this negatively and feels that if he cannot find the answer to life then humanity has no intrinsic value. This results in him becoming nihilistic and committing suicide. One the other hand, the rebel is the one who decides that, even though he cannot find a meaning to life, that humanity is "the single necessary good." From this moment every question, every word, is an act of rebellion. This is the rebel’s fight against nihilism. In this essay Camus goes over the different ways through history that nihilism has been defeated, its political implications, and how justice and freedom exist without God.

Stuff I didn't include:
A slave rebelling from his master is an example of metaphysical rebellion. The rebel at first wants to be his equal and then wants to become the master. The rebel's aim is to become God. For him to become God means that he cannot recognize any other laws but his own and he must accept crime. He also has the power of life and death over others.
(In metaphysical rebellion, the rebel is not necessarily atheist, but even if he is, to become God does not mean to literally "become God." After all, how can they? This has the has the same contention as Nietzsche, "God is Dead." Camus references Nietsche throughout the essay.)
In a metaphysical revolution (the bitter end to metaphysical revolt) is the only logical solution.
Justice without God is only possible with freedom; without law there is no freedom. So justice without God only possible with law. Freedom of law must agree with the freedom of morals and bring together a civilzation. With further analysis it seems that the rebel must enslave men in order to liberate them. This causes the rebel to not be God anymore and to just learn to live and die.
After creating order, clarity, unity and understanding reality the rebel conforms and this is the end of his rebellion .

Any questions?

In Emily's second response to my post, "A Radical Construction of People" she asked two questions. 1. If a radical constructivist knows somebody who always seems to interpret the world the same way they do, can he or she rely on that person for the "truth" (or their version of the truth that tends to match up with his/hers)? 2. Can a radical constructivist rely on other people for information?

It seems that a radical constructivist could not rely on someone else for the truth, even if they share the same view. This is because they do not share the same experiences and if they do not share the same experiences than they do not share the same knowledge (all they can know for certain is what they experience). And since knowledge is formed of truths, only what the radical constructivist experiences is true. Therefore, the radical constructivist can not except anyone else's truths as their own.

Yet, when it comes to relying on others for information, whether they like to admit it or not, they have to do that. Everyone has to rely on certain information our culture feeds us. How else would they learn to speak? How else would they know what they can and cannot do? How else would they have friends? Just as it's impossible to believe everything, it's also impossible to not believe anything.

If you don't rely on any information that's ever given to you how can you learn anything?

Re: William Trial (4/27)

In his latest post Bill talked about the grading system and asked, "How could we deal with such a system and another more important question is how would this function in education at all levels?"

Whether a Professor has a doctorate or a PhD in their field, they are considered a professional for that field. If you don't like the way a professor grades then don't take classes with them. It's as simple as that. And if you don't like any of them, then transfer schools, the whole point of why your here is to get an education right? So if you feel like you aren't getting the proper one, go somewhere where you can.

The major problem with high schools is that they are curriculum based. Teachers often rush concepts and lessons so that they can teach all of them instead of giving as much time that's needed for a certain subject. But, this isn't high school, the content isn't curriculum based, and all teachers grade differently here. For example, I know that Tim Jay, at least in his upper level classes, doesn't give grades until the end because he compares everyone's work and bases your on rank. This is a system most professors don't use, and one that I personally don't like, but that's why I dropped his class. Like Bill said, they give you a syllabus that states how they are going to grade you and you have time to drop that class. I can understand someone appealing a grade if the professor messed up with the given rubric, but other than that I don't understand. If you do your assignments and study then you'll do fine. As Silliman says, "the grade will take care of itself."

Some types of classes, you cannot grade on ability, but on progress. Like gym classes for example, some people just aren't as fit as the others, they can't run as fast and they can't lift as much. That doesn't mean that they're not trying they just had a bad predisposition, but if they improve, then that shows that they are really trying. When I was in high school all my gym teachers liked me, not because I ran the fastest mile, because believe me, I wasn't even close, but I always improved and tried my hardest. That's all you have to do with anything, just try your hardest and if your hardest isn't good enough then you aren't doing it right or whatever it is your doing just isn't right for you. And if you do believe it's right for you than keep trying, and you'll get there because you can have anything within reason if you wast it bad enough.

As for Jules, like I said in class, if he put in as much effort into the class as he did in that letter than he wouldn't have had a problem in the first place. He is a teacher, he probably had to spend a lot of his time on grading papers and correcting tests, so he couldn't put in as much effort into the class as he would have liked.

So to answer Bills question, if we got rid of the grading system we would have to base people off of other things for graduate and undergraduate programs. Community service, SAT scores, after-school activities, admission essays, internships, letters of recommendations etc. They would look at everything (besides grades) that they do now. They would probably look very intensely at the letters of recommendations from teachers/professors and SAT scores. As for functioning for all levels, I guess they would have to do some sort of rewards system for all the students who do there work and do good on the tests that don't really count.

Grades are important, but they aren't everything. What's the most important is how much you learn. But how is a biology teacher going to know that without giving you a test? How will a philosophy professor know that without having discussions? How will a math teacher know that without seeing you do examples? Grading isn't meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to praise a suck-up, it's to show you how well you did based on the rubric. It's to show the teacher how much you learned. It's for competition. Face it, if you weren't graded on your classes how much effort would you really put them? And because you aren't being graded and not putting effort in, you aren't going to learn very much. Therefore grading is important for your learning.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but the only people who would want to get rid of the grading system are the people who get bad grades. And because they get bad grades they won't be able to change the grading system because they aren't smart enough to get hired as an educational director (or whoever it is that decides those things). Do you think that this is true?

Radical Constructionism as therapy?

The video clip of Ernst Von Glaserfeld on Radical constructionism as therapy, made me a little skeptic. I may not know much about the depth of unconceptualized apples, but I know a lot about therapy, and there are many problems with his statement.
How exactly is thinking this way therapeutic? Is there any evidence that supports its effectiveness? Which types of people should receive this treatment? What types of people should not receive this treatment? How would the therapy sessions be set up? Would this be under the humanistic paradigm? What makes him think that everyone needs this therapy? What makes him think that everyone should think this way? Is it because he wants everyone to stop asking him questions? Is it because he wants to be right?

A Radical Construction of people?

As we all know now, a radical constructivist believes that we obtain knowledge through our experiences. I do not believe in the whole, "A rock does not exist until I have experienced it. You can not show me a rock that I have not experienced because once you show me it, I have experienced it." Yet, I do believe that when it comes to specific things, we can only know from our experiences.

For example, people. (In a hypothetical situation) I hear my friends talking about someone who I do not know. I am uncertain of the existence of the proclaimed person that they are describing. I am not doubting the unknown person's physical existence, but I am uncertain of who this person really is. The characteristics that they give this person are not certain to me because I have not experienced them. They may or may not be funny to me, they may or may not seem intelligent, I do not know. Since we perceive who people are subjectively, the unknown person as other people describe him/her, to me, does not exists because I may not perceive them that way.

How do you truly know someone?
Is this a radical constructivist's view on people?

Re: Brendon Tomasi

Brendon commented to my post "Re: Joel's physiological time vs. Psychological time. " Through out his comment he talked about qualitative hedonism and epicureanism, then asked if I thought it was philosophically equivalent to the happiness archetype. I looked up what a qualitative hedonist was and found that they believe that pleasures differ in quality and quantity and the pleasures that are more pleasureful are the ones that are sought after. I don't deny this theory, but that is not what the happiness archetype suggests. The happiness archetype does not deal with the quality or quantity of pleasures per se.

Epicureanists believe in finding simple pleasures, yet not indulging yourself in what you want. This along with avoiding physical pain will allow you to feel “free from fear” and understand the way the world is. These theories are not the equivalent of the happiness archetype. The happiness archetype involves pain where hedonism and epicureanisim does not. The most equivalent philosophical term is a mix between (regular) hedonism and eudaimonia.

Eudaimonia is a Greek work that is roughly translated to "happiness" or "well being." According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is the highest state of happiness and is achieved over a life of: pleasure, practical activity, and philosophy. (In my own philosophy, this is similar to "ultimate satisfaction," but that's another story.) It's funny, because the keynote speaker at the undergraduate research conference was talking about eudaimonia. She said, "the idea is to make small goals, but have a bigger farther-in-the-future goal at the same time." The smaller goals are like check points.

According to her, eudaimonia means to put yourself through some pain now for your well being, while still enjoying that. You don't want to write that 18 page research paper. It will take a really long time, you'll get annoyed by not being able to find the information you want, and you will certainly pull all-nighters. But when you finish it, you are a better writer, an experienced (for example) philosopher, it's on a topic you like, and you know what? You are smarter and you feel accomplished. This is precisely what the happiness archetype entails. This is precisely why I am a musician. You get a piece and it's tough and when you look at it you think, "I'm never going to be able to play that." Then it gets broken-down, taken in chunks, practiced repeatedly, and there is frustration -- a lot of frustration. Yet, the more frustration the better, because when you finally get it right, the better you feel. Eudaimonia! Right? ...Wrong.

For a few days now, I have been researching eudaimonia. None of the articles I've read indicate that you have to put yourself through pain now that enjoy, for your well being later. According to Aristotle a doing and living well is different for everybody. So eudaimonia is not the best parallel to the happiness archetype, yet it is closer than epicureanism and qualitative hedonism.

So what would the philosophy of: 'putting yourself through pain (while enjoying that pain) in order better your well being and to achieve a long term goal,' be called?

Solipsism, Nihilism, Radical Constructivism, and Metaphysics

I find solipsism very interesting, mostly because it's absolutely ridiculous. Solipsists believe that they are the only thing that they are certain exists. Because if you are thinking about you existence you are existing (or something to that extent). Con ego sum. It's kind of an egotistical statement though, don't you think? It's giving ones self way too much credit. Do you you think you could have imagined all the things in the world? all the intricate details, all the people you meet -- it is all in your dream?

Philosophical nihilism is the idea that nothing really exists, values have no value, and nothing can be truly known.

Like I mentioned in my last post, in psychiatry nihilism is a delusion. ( A delusion is a distorted belief, not to be confused with a hallucination which is sensory experience not caused by external stimuli.) This delusion is found in certain types of schizophrenia; the patient may think that they are a ghost and only here in spirit form.

Radical constructivists believe that knowledge adjusts itself to fit certain situations. We cannot know what we have not experienced. Yet, it is not through our direct experiences that we construct our world, but our interpretations, it's what we take from our experiences that shapes our world and knowledge. "one need not to enter far into constructivists thought to realize that it inevitably leads to the contention that man --and man alone -- is responsible for his thinking, his knowledge and, therefore, also for what he does" (Glasersfeld).

Kant stated that, metaphysics suggests that things are only true if they correspond to an independent and objective reality.

So the difference between solipsism and nihilism is that solipsists state that they are real and everything else isn't, where (metaphysical) nihilists suggest that nothing is real including themselves. The idea's of Radical constructivists and solipsists overlap, but solipsist deal with the metaphysical -- a realm radical constructivists want nothing to do with.

According to Glasersfeld, our interpretations of reality constructs our knowledge. In class it was stated that RC, unlike solipsists, believe that you can't construct the world any way you want. Yet, since RC don't believe in metaphysics, wouldn't that suggest that you can construct the world anyway you want? Do any of the four philosophical positions/beliefs cross over in any other way?