Need some help on a Philosophical Question

[Calis]

Ok, so I'm taking an Intro to Philosophy course now, which I'm quite enjoying I might add. We've got a research paper due next week though, which is a ten pager due on a question he randomly assigned to us.

My question came up as:

"What is life, are we living it as it is or how we want it to be? How can we know the difference?"

Now, I can come up with some stuff on my own easily enough on this. The problem I'm having is finding some references to use. Anyone know of any writers who touched on this topic?

Maybe I'm going about it the wrong way, I should be searching for something else and tie it together. Maybe focus on reality and free-will/determinism or something? I'm not sure exactly. Pretty stumped right now though.

Any ideas? Any thoughts on the question itself would be appreciated also, maybe it'll spark something that'll help me find info.

Frustrating me, doesn't help that I'm sick either.

[WSUCougar]

Plato, perhaps?

[Blackadar]

Life is the Matrix.

[Ksyrup]

Where is JasonTobias when we need him?

[rkmsuf]

Who are you? Who are you? I am a walrus.

And can tape all your buns together.

[WSUCougar]

Where is JasonTobias when we need him?
I think him and John Galt are out on Route 66 somewhere doing a male Thelma & Louise.

[Ksyrup]

That ice weasels line is still fresh in my memory after all these years. I quote it sometimes at awkward moments just to get a reaction.

[Ksyrup]

BTW, I know that one line wasn't a JT original, but the whole "why are you an angry young man?" stuff that followed it was hilarious.

[gottimd]

I think it was Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

[WSUCougar]

BTW, I know that one line wasn't a JT original, but the whole "why are you an angry young man?" stuff that followed it was hilarious.
Agreed!

[Ksyrup]

Does anyone have that? That original thread probably doesn't exist, but anyone have a follow-up/recap that has it?

[mrsimperless]

I never took philosophy in school, but I am currently in the midst of an excellent book titled "From Socrates to Sartre : The Philosophic Quest" which is an overview of western philosophy. Apparently it was made into a PBS series at one point in time and the writer presents the material in such a way that never loses my attention.

Anyway, I don't know if I can specifically answer your question, but I do remember a couple of things from an earlier chapter. I think Socrates was of the opinion that "virtue is knowledge" and Plato expanded on that with the whole "mind, body and soul" thing. Wow, I guess that isn't much help but that's all I have for you. I'm still only on part 2 of 5 and am currently reading about Descartes.

[ISiddiqui]

Nietszche talks about the fact that we are not living life as it really is. We have constructed this order, but it has little to do with our will.

[Raiders Army]

"What is life, are we living it as it is or how we want it to be? How can we know the difference?"

I'm not sure if I understand your question. Aren't we doing both?

[Calis]

I'm not sure if I understand your question. Aren't we doing both?

Good question, I suppose that's a way to look at it also. It's of course just taking a side and having valid reasoning behind your belief.

Personally I lean more towards thinking that we aren't. It seems that most of our lives are spent dwelling on the past or looking towards the future. We're fixated on what was and what could(will) be, not on what is. That was kind of the route I'm going with this.

The problem is, finding the references for that..and turning it into 10 pages. ;)

I can see your point though, but I think everyone is delusional about life in a couple respects at least. Then again, I've been accused of being pessimistic before.

[Calis]

Nietszche talks about the fact that we are not living life as it really is. We have constructed this order, but it has little to do with our will.

Thanks!

I'd looked up most of the "big names" from the distant past, but hadn't got to that point yet.

Helps narrow my search a bit, I'll see what he has to say.

[tategter]

I think it was Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

Actually he reminded his boy to take care of his cock for him. :)

[Sun Tzu]

The first places I would go would be religion, and society.

Religion for obvious reasons.

Society because you can argue that life isn't meant to be lived with countries, cities, towns, governments, etc... You can argue that life is meant to be lived simply, with a drive to understand oneself not primarily on a physical level (which seems to be the main area of study now), but on a spiritual level.

There are many ways you can go with this, and after some reading and thought, I doubt you'll have any trouble coming up with a ten pager. Especialy if it's double spaced.

[st.cronin]

Check out Schopenhauer as well.

[AENeuman]

[i]"What is life, are we living it as it is or how we want it to be? How can we know the difference?" [i]

Good stuff. 10 pages and an intro class... thinking that you need to use several people rather than just one.

You have to address Socrates nature and man, which he was the first to say they are separate.

Yadda yadda yadda, Descartes. He is basically the reason for your question. While his "I think therefore I am" helps, it's his questions and doubts that are really the good stuff. Others answer/approach to the question are better.

This is just me, and what do I know, but I would focus on either existentialism or pragmatism. Both are fun. Existentialism can focus on man being the sum of his parts, that existence precedes and commands essence, and all we know is that we exist and are alone.
from www.spaceandmotion.com
Sartre's Being and Nothingness (1943) is a major document of existentialism. Its primary question is: 'What is it like to be a human being?'

Sartre's answer is that human reality consists of two modes of existence: of being and of nothingness. The human being exists both as an in-itself (ensoi), an object or thing, and as a for-itself (pour-soi), a consciousness. The existence of an in-itself is 'opaque to itself .. because it is filled with itself.' In contrast, the for-itself, or consciousness, has no such fullness of existence, because it is no-thing.

.. consciousness because it is nothingness, makes us aware of the possibility of choosing what we will be. This is the condition of human freedom. To perform an action a person must be able to stand back from participation in the world of existing things and so contemplate what does not exist. The choice of action is also a choice of oneself. In choosing oneself one does not choose to exist: existence is given and one has to exist in order to choose. From this analysis Sartre derives a famous slogan of existentialism: 'existence precedes and commands essence'. He maintains there is no reason for choosing as one does. The choice is unjustified, groundless. This is the perpetual human reality.

As for pragmatism go with my man Whitehead. From Forest Wood's book on Whitehead. "Whitehead’s view of the nature of reality offers a new way of thinking about "things," and suggest that reality is not composed of things but of self-creative events, individual units, having both physical and mental aspects, and being internally related to each other. This offers an alternative to the mechanistic view of the nature of reality, and substitutes creativity in place of determinism."

[Buccaneer]

bro, as always, you're good. I have nothing to add except to confirm to use multiple sources, it would show that the answer starts with looking at the question in different ways - in breaking down life as living and life as self-created - which will lead to the answer being a known difference and an unknown difference. It's the process of thought that matters. Personally, I tend towards more of the pragmatic end.

[Desnudo]

#9

[ISiddiqui]

Thanks!

I'd looked up most of the "big names" from the distant past, but hadn't got to that point yet.

Helps narrow my search a bit, I'll see what he has to say.
No problem... one thing you want to look at from Nietzsche is his discussion about the herd mentality. People don't think for themselves. They all follow the leader. The real way to live life is to eschew traditional morality and embrace your creative side. Life is really our inner will (our creative side), but we've gone away from that in order to create an ordered society.

[Calis]

Great stuff guys, thanks a bunch.

Just needed a nudge in the right direction, I was looking at the question as is and not dissecting the parts.

Just knew when I was getting really frustrated this morning I could count on FOFC for some leads.

I'd actually written a couple pages before this, but just glossing over a few things. Wanted to define life for the purpose of the paper, and the points I mentioned earlier. What I ended up with was about 4 pages, and the references I made where of Colin Wilson who I'd never heard of before, but is a 20th century writer who happened to write a couple books that were very much trying to answer this question. So I dug up some of his stuff, and used a quote to back my answer up from Coelho's "The Alchemist".

Really the main thing the teacher is looking for in this paper from what I gather is that we make a stand. We're not allowed to be ambigous or on the fence, we have to pick an answer and reason out why that is so. Be sure of it also, but of course be rational.

Thanks again folks.

AENuman- Great stuff, thanks. Things I should've thought of but just never clicked. I've never read anything by Whitehead though and am unfamiliar with Pragmatism overall. Existentialism on the other hand seems to be about everywhere. Much obliged for the explanation though, that gives me tons to write about just there.

Love this class though, glad I took it. Even though it gives me a migrained half the time. Our teacher has fun with it though, one of the essays on our last test was.

"What time is an elephant?"

That was a fun one to explain off.