So after sometime of leisure reading various philosophers, I've now, finally started my first philosophy course. I had dropped my biology class and took philosophy in it's place. I talked to my teacher and he sized me up, seemed like he had little faith as to how well I was going to do; but It's my duty to prove him wrong. When I was handed the first assignment, it was a thing, two paged piece of paper with a list of various introductory questions I.E "what philosophical questions do you ask yourself?" "why is philosophy important?" got those down no sweat. As I progressed into it a little more, I had to analyze the 4 Socratic methods of philosophy. Took me a while to finish, but I got it done. Even further I had to talk about Marcel's "problem and mystery" and how people react to such a thing. After 30 cigarettes and 100 Grateful Dead songs, I wrote this:
"Marcel sees a problem as something is placed “before” the viewer, which is external to the viewer’s mind perceiving it, and is an outside, foreign object, which has never undergone an analysis to the individual. Once the externalized object is first perceived, it carries a distortion; but when a further inquiry, and careful analysis is made, the object will always yield a logical result. The problem can be viewed by various parties, and through the analysis of more than one party viewing the same problem, a validification can be given. Finally, the problem is a product of curiosity, and once the validification is given, the yielded result will expand on knowledge, and experience in the individual. For example, an external problem could be “do all objects have the same mass?” We can see that if we pick up a book, it can be lifted without any problem, but if we were to try and pick up a rock, the rock would easily be heavier. We can see that the rock is heavier than the book; therefore all objects do not have the same mass.
Marcel defines a mystery as something which is a concrete part of the self, and carries no objectivity; the mystery is “in the viewer”, as opposed to “before the viewer”. A mystery cannot be defined by using a thorough analysis of external objects because mysteries are entirely subjective problems, and since the mystery is not an object of externalization, it is completely intangible. Due to the subjective, intangible nature of the mystery, the viewer can only use his own intuition to solve, and find the problem; there can be no widespread view with regards to the mystery, and no validity can be given, the mystery is independent of externals. The viewer will turn to “second reflection” to solve the phenomena, and with this the viewer will see the problem within his own consciousness, and try to solve the problem within the realm of the self. An example of a mystery is the nature of language, and communication and how they answer questions beyond the realm of human perception. Language and communication cannot give fulfilling answers to intuitive problems, since all language has limits and can only be explained insofar as words allow them to. If a person asks “does a God exist?” the problem can only be answered through language and communication, which relies on a logical method to explain a metaphysical problem. The question stems from intuition, and has difficulty being answered through a logical method. Many people have tried to use language to explain this mystery, but people are still asking the same question over and over again because the language has limits within the realm of human experience, and a metaphysical problem is transcendental; so using a human based structure to answer an intuitive, transcendental problem can be a very difficult task.
The subjective perplexity of the mystery leads people to find an explanation; this could lead someone to philosophy. For example, someone could say a basic question such as “do I exist?” this is a mystery, but is independent of logic. The sciences or mathematics could point to answers for this question, but does not give a satisfactory answer. The person will begin looking elsewhere for the answer, they will either depend on religion, or philosophers to, not answer the question per se, but give insight with regards to the problem. But this isn’t always so, they might not turn to either philosophers, or religion, but will follow their own intuition and ask their own philosophical questions and give themselves answers.
To conclude, when a physical, logical, “before us” problem is solved, it will expand the individual’s knowledge of externals. The result will be more practical to fitting into the structure of the natural world; on the other hand, someone who studies philosophy will have a more spiritual, self fulfillment. A problem can be solved through logic, a mystery relies independent of logic and solely on the individual, and thus will always be with them for years and years. The study of philosophy, looking for answers to these mysteries will benefit someone in a way that logic cannot, and when someone studies logic and external problems, they will get a more practical fulfillment."
As well as various other questions, but do not rely on such an analysis so far. I will keep this blog updated from time to time to tell everyone who reads how this course is coming along.
"Marcel sees a problem as something is placed “before” the viewer, which is external to the viewer’s mind perceiving it, and is an outside, foreign object, which has never undergone an analysis to the individual. Once the externalized object is first perceived, it carries a distortion; but when a further inquiry, and careful analysis is made, the object will always yield a logical result. The problem can be viewed by various parties, and through the analysis of more than one party viewing the same problem, a validification can be given. Finally, the problem is a product of curiosity, and once the validification is given, the yielded result will expand on knowledge, and experience in the individual. For example, an external problem could be “do all objects have the same mass?” We can see that if we pick up a book, it can be lifted without any problem, but if we were to try and pick up a rock, the rock would easily be heavier. We can see that the rock is heavier than the book; therefore all objects do not have the same mass.
Marcel defines a mystery as something which is a concrete part of the self, and carries no objectivity; the mystery is “in the viewer”, as opposed to “before the viewer”. A mystery cannot be defined by using a thorough analysis of external objects because mysteries are entirely subjective problems, and since the mystery is not an object of externalization, it is completely intangible. Due to the subjective, intangible nature of the mystery, the viewer can only use his own intuition to solve, and find the problem; there can be no widespread view with regards to the mystery, and no validity can be given, the mystery is independent of externals. The viewer will turn to “second reflection” to solve the phenomena, and with this the viewer will see the problem within his own consciousness, and try to solve the problem within the realm of the self. An example of a mystery is the nature of language, and communication and how they answer questions beyond the realm of human perception. Language and communication cannot give fulfilling answers to intuitive problems, since all language has limits and can only be explained insofar as words allow them to. If a person asks “does a God exist?” the problem can only be answered through language and communication, which relies on a logical method to explain a metaphysical problem. The question stems from intuition, and has difficulty being answered through a logical method. Many people have tried to use language to explain this mystery, but people are still asking the same question over and over again because the language has limits within the realm of human experience, and a metaphysical problem is transcendental; so using a human based structure to answer an intuitive, transcendental problem can be a very difficult task.
The subjective perplexity of the mystery leads people to find an explanation; this could lead someone to philosophy. For example, someone could say a basic question such as “do I exist?” this is a mystery, but is independent of logic. The sciences or mathematics could point to answers for this question, but does not give a satisfactory answer. The person will begin looking elsewhere for the answer, they will either depend on religion, or philosophers to, not answer the question per se, but give insight with regards to the problem. But this isn’t always so, they might not turn to either philosophers, or religion, but will follow their own intuition and ask their own philosophical questions and give themselves answers.
To conclude, when a physical, logical, “before us” problem is solved, it will expand the individual’s knowledge of externals. The result will be more practical to fitting into the structure of the natural world; on the other hand, someone who studies philosophy will have a more spiritual, self fulfillment. A problem can be solved through logic, a mystery relies independent of logic and solely on the individual, and thus will always be with them for years and years. The study of philosophy, looking for answers to these mysteries will benefit someone in a way that logic cannot, and when someone studies logic and external problems, they will get a more practical fulfillment."
As well as various other questions, but do not rely on such an analysis so far. I will keep this blog updated from time to time to tell everyone who reads how this course is coming along.
