Final Post

I dont think that ego based goals are ulitimatly destructive. I think that having an ego based goal can be extremely motivating if you are trying to overcome a physical challenge or are in a sports competition. I think that the narrarator thinks its destructive because when he's climbing the mountain he is doing it as a chance to reflect and think about all the things he thinks about on his motorcycle and the things he thinks about Phaedrus. Therefore rushing and trying to reach the top of the mountain first wouldnt be beneficial. However if you were having a rock climbing competition then having an ego based goal would be a good thing becuase it would help show others that you are the best and can reach the top of the mountain first.

In my personal life I dont have an ego goal when it comes to applying to college. I am open to almost any college from anywhere around the US thats has my major along with other opportunities incase I decide to change my major. When I apply to colleges I dont try to apply to the best and well known colleges so that people can think that I the smartest, I am more interested in my own personal gain than the oppinion of others. For my futures I have a more ego based goal than before because I want to be the most successful and make the most money. As a response to the narrator I would tell him that an ego based goal isnt completely destructive and can be a major motivating factor especially when your in a sports competetion and want to be the best you can be.

final post

I agree with the narrator when he states that ego-climbers are self destructive. They only want to do things that will make them look good. This stops them from doing things that they might otherwise love. For example, if an ego-climber is good at rock climbing, they will only do that. They won’t try out another sport like soccer because if they are bad at it, they will look bad. This stops ego-climbers from trying out new things that they could potentially be good at. However, I don’t think that setting goals and motivating yourself is a bad thing. It is good to set goals for the future, as long as they are not too binding. It’s good to have a general idea of what you want to do later in life for example, but you should be open to change. When people get their hearts too set on an idea, especially at a young age, that’s when you get into trouble. If as a child you had your heart set on going to Harvard and then didn’t get in, you could be devastated. It’s good to apply to Harvard and show interest, but you should have back up ideas and be open to change. Phaedrus did what he wanted to do without caring what other people would think. This got him into trouble because it challenged the ideas of ego-climbers goals and views.
I don’t think I have much of an ego goal about college. Of course, I want to go to college, but I’m not too set on one particular school. I am looking at many different schools and keeping my options open. I don’t think it matters too much about the big names of colleges as long as I find a place where I will get what I want out of college. I also don’t yet know what I want to do with my future. I would personally respond to the narrator that it is important to have personal goals for the short and long term, as long as they are flexible and you don’t get too heartbroken if they aren’t fully realized.

Final Post

The narrator's discrimination against ego leads us into new territory. I have a poster in my room that simply states "life is a journey, enjoy it." I think this statement best captures how I feel. If you lose yourself in your own ego trying to accomplish something, admirable though it may be, you lose sight of whats important. What is the point of looking back at what you accomplished if you can't say "I had fun doing that"? Well, maybe you're one of those people who will say they did have fun. This then goes along with Pirsig's point that an ego-climber will lie to protect their image. They will never admit it, but no one ever enjoys thinking and looking towards the future because it distracts from the present. I think the narrator believes it because of his relationship with Phaedrus. He notes hoe he attempts a pilgrimage, but doesn't make it to the mountain in time. Not because he lacked the physical strength but because he was doing it for the wrong reasons. Phaedrus was one of the largest ego-climbers in the novel. Even in college, he looks to change the system to fulfill how he thinks it should be run. Meanwhile, his students are learning or are they? Phaedrus fails to see because of his farsightedness.
Having said everything I had, I do have a goal of settling down after college. It is an unbelievably stressful process in choosing the size, location, mascot, student body, etc. I take everything seriously when it comes to college but I do my best to live in the present. I try to live one day at a time and have a very "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" mentality. However, for getting into college thats just not realistic. One has to consider grades and the whole application process which does require some analyzing in advance. So to the narrator I would say that the advice is sound, but is difficult to honor.

Final Post

The narrator in ZAMM argues against "ego goals" for many reasons. For one, he argues that because of an ego goal, one might miss "a beautiful passage of sunlight through the trees". I take this to mean that ego goals make one close-minded. If one ultimately sets their goal as "getting into college", they will not look at any other possible option in their life. He argues that ego goals make you focused on the future, what's ahead on the trail, and not what you are walking on at that moment. At first glance at this idea, I disagreed with it. Goals are what keep me going. I do my work to get that "A" to get into college, to get a degree, etc. However, it was the idea of "missing a beautiful passage of sunlight" that turned me around. At what point does the goal chasing stop? I now agree with Pirsig, that it is important to not simply live in the future. To enjoy life, to truly get something out of it, we must learn to appreciate what is in front of us now, not what is going to be in front of us later. This is related to Phaedrus because Phaedrus consistently did what pleased him, and this got him into trouble in an ego-goal-centric world.

For me, I have attempted to base my high school course schedule around what interests me. In a number of cases, this has led me to AP/IB/Honors courses. In terms of choosing classes, I try to avoid simply picking something "because it looks good." However, I do fall into a pattern of doing work for a grade and nothing else when I am bored by something, like Math. To the narrator, I would say that I do not deliberately ignore the trail, but it does happen. But when I go to college, and I have even more freedom over my classes, I know I will take a long, hard, look at a class (as well as who teaches it) before I sign up. I don't want to miss that beautiful passage of sunlight.

Final Post

I sort of agree with the narrator when he says that ego-climbers are eventually destructive. They do things to try and prove something which doesn't allow them to actually enjoy what they are doing. But the author also says that "when you try to climb a mountain to prove how big you are, you almost never make it" (pg189) I don't think this part is necessarily true because some people just need goals to accomplish something and i their goal is to prove how big they are then why is that bad. He says that it leads to endless times where you have to prove yourself and nothing gets fulfilled. I'm not really sure if I think that part is true, but I do believe that some people need goals to get something done and that its not a bad thing to be a little bit of an ego-climber, as long as you try to enjoy your surroundings while climbing that mountain. Also the few times I have climbed mountains, I was definitely and ego-climber. I always pictured myself somewhere else and wanted to know how much longer and only climbed to prove that I could. But maybe that is why I hate climbing mountains and going hiking and stuff, because I am an ego-climber and the few experiences I had were fine but not incredible. I think the narrator believes all this because he believes that you should experience your surroundings and enjoy them as much as possible. For example in the beginning of the book when he talked about how he liked motorcycles better then cars because he was a part of the environment, not watching it through a glass window. The narrator definitely gets his strong opinions from Phaedrus. Phaedrus was always the one to say what he wanted even if nobody liked it (for example the whole quality argument) He did things his own way and passed on some of this spunk to the narrator.


I think the ego goal of going to college is annoying. Although it is now the social norm to do this, I really don't like the fact that everything we do has to look good for colleges and we cant get one C without freaking out cause we arent going to get into the college we want. We should be able to enjoy high school, like enjoying the climb of the mountain. But instead we are constantly stressed and just praying that the top of the mountain comes sooner. We dream and talk about other places because we just do not want to be in school. This is what society has done to us. Made us all ego-climbers when it comes to college. We should be able to enjoy the ride but instead we are scared that we aren't going to succeed in the future.

Final Post: ZAMM and "Ego-Climbing

At the end of Chapter 17 in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator comments that ego goals are a kind of motivation that is "ultimately destructive" because "any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster" (p. 189 pink). Even more, he later says that "when an ego-climber has an image of himself to protect he naturally lies to protect this image" (p. 197 pink).

For the first 1/2 of your response, answer the following: Do you agree or not, and why? Briefly explain why you think the narrator believes this. Is his strong opinion related to Phaedrus in any way?

For the second 1/2 of your response, answer the following: What about you and your ego goal of going to college and making a future for yourself? How would you personally respond to the narrator.

Developed responses to both sets of questions are required for full points!

RESPONSES DUE BY THE START OF CLASS ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8TH.

POSTING FOR QUESTION #7 HAS ENDED / GROUP COMMENT BELOW

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 7 (QUESTIONS ON ROMANTIC/CLASSICAL UNDERSTANDING) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 6 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

SINCE MANY RESPONSES WERE SIMILAR, I'VE POSTED MY RESPONSE TO THE CLASS BELOW. PLEASE READ IT (AND POST A COMMENT IF YOU LIKE)!

THANKS,

Mr. B

My response to the group:

I enjoyed reading everyone’s responses. What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:

1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. That classical and romantic approaches to understanding were indeed irreconcilable, suggesting that they don’t compliment each other.

Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding yet you also say both understandings go together about as well as oil and water. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:

Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?

a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?

Another thing I’d like for you to consider:

Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?

Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a wim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?

In the 60s, we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture—two worlds growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.

Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…

Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.

But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"

Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.

The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.

But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.

To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).

To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.

classical vs. romantic

the classical way of viewing is the more analytical way of viewing things, breaking them down into the lists and functions that make up the larger object/being that is being thought of. an example of classical thinking is a scientific lab report or writeup. there are many different stages, materials and hypotheses that make up the greater object, being in this case, a science report.

a romantic way of viewing things is that of a sort of first impression or gut feeling of an object. an example of the romantic way of thinking is again the science report. a romantic view of this would be that it is not detailed lists and functions that go into the report, but just simply a scientific writeup on topic A.

although most people would like to see themselves as romantic thinkers, i believe that most people are in fact classical thinkers, as we are brought up in a society that thinks of things in a classical manner.

Classical vs. Romanticism

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the author talks about human understanding in 2 different categories, romantic and classical. A romantic is more likely to see something as a whole, and then think about it that way. A classical person takes apart the object or idea and puts it into different categories to try and understand it better.
I mostly fit into the romantic category. For example when I see my dad fixing his electric car all I can see are pieces that make the car, I don’t really see the way each one works and how together they can make a car work, in that way I think I am romantic. Also in the book when the narrator was describing how John is romantic because he can’t fix the motorcycle himself and always just wants to bring it to a professional, that is just like me. I don’t like fixing things myself cause I feel like I am always going to break something, like with my laptop, I would rather just bring it to a professional.
I don’t think I fit into the classical category that much because I don’t need to break everything down to understand that it works. I think more like if it works, it works, and if it doesn’t, bring it to someone to fix it.
Although I feel like I fit only into one category, I definitely think both ways are valid ways at looking at the world. Having two different ways of human understanding makes people different and therefore makes the world more interesting. Classical thinkers break everything down and think about it more in depth, while romantic thinkers just think about things as a whole. They both are valid and both get the job done.

Classical vs. Romantic

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance the author divides up human understanding into classical and romantic. I feel that the classical perspective tends to break things down to it's foundation in order to truly understand its function while the romantic point of view bases its understanding on outside appearances, what they see. Romantic looks at feelings and actions while classical analyzes and dissects. Personally I think I can fall into both categories it just all depends on the situation. In school I am often taught in Math classes to think classically to get to a specific answer, but if I am given a creative piece to do for English I think romantically to write my best work. When I first meet people I may base the person off what I see right in front of me and as time goes by really try to find out what kind of person they are. Honestly I agree that both are valid ways at looking at the world and therefore both needed to understand what's around you. Both offer different points of view of the world like the right and left side of your brain. The left side of your brain deals with mostly logic and facts, while the right uses more feelings and imagination. You need both perspectives to help better understand this world even though at times one becomes more dominate.

Classic vs Romantic

I believe that a classical way of thinking is that you think of things in more of a technical way. A classical thinker would break things apart and figure out what gets connected to what and how it works. This would be like wondering how a computer works on the inside and what makes it be able to perform.

On the other hand, romantic thinking is more looking at something and taking it for what it is. This would be more looking at something and not really trying to figure out what it is made of, or what makes it work. Some one who was a romantic would look at a computer turn it on and not really ever think about what’s going on inside of it.

I personally feel that I look at things from a romantic’s perspective. When I see something technology related, I personally react as a romantic would. I don’t really care about why it’s doing what it is doing as long as it is happening. So if I sit down and turn on my computer, I don’t think about why its running or how its running, as long as it works.

I agree with the narrator, in that they are both valid ways of looking at the world but they dot really mix well. I feel this way because they sort of cancel each other out. No one really wants to break processes down as well as just wanting to see things for the way that they are.

The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: classical and romantic. Those who fall into the classical category look at the underlying form of things. They break things down to the components rather than just looking at the surface. The romantic model is more creative and intuitive, leaving less room for precise technological mechanisms. I would categorize myself as a romantic. At first glance, I tend to look more at the surface of things rather than picking apart the components piece by piece. I look at things as a whole rather than individual systems. If something is not immediately appealing to me often times I will not give it a second thought. Jon Dutko is the perfect illustration of this tendency. If I took the time to dissect and break him down into components, I imagine he'd be an okay guy, but since I am not a classical thinker, I see him as the attention starved individual that he presents himself as, and that does not appeal to me. I prefer to look at the simple beauty of things, rather than scrutinizing each and every aspect of life. I agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” Classical thinking involves a more technological way of looking at things than romantic, but i don't believe that makes romantic thinking any less valid. I agree that the two cannot be brought together because once classical thinking kicks in and one begins breaking things down and looking for the underlying form, the basis of romantic thinking, creativity and imagination, are stripped from the thinker's mind and he becomes more focused on the science of whatever it is he is looking at rather than the artistic beauty of it. Similarly, if one wishes to view things as a romantic does, there is no room for the scientific breakdown that is the process of a classical thinker.

Classical v.s Romantic understanding

According to Phaedrus, classical understanding is one that relies on reason and law and tries to find the underlying form of things. On the other hand, romantic understanding is primarily concerned with the appearances of things and relies on senses, emotions, and esthetic conscience. This is not to say that a romantic is completely oblivious of underlying realities or that a classical person does not appreciate the form and beauty of things. The difference is rather in the emphasis and the point of view each takes looking at the world around them. I, for one, am a strong believer in the need to understand the world as the world really is. Whether we as individuals find the world and its contents pleasing or not is secondary to our understanding of how our world works. It is this working and the laws of this world that determine the reality of our existence. Looking at a situation or a problem, my first inclination is to see how the situation has come about or how it has developped; how the problem affects me is secondary. This is not to say that I am not concerned with the effects of the world or forms around me, but I am convinced that to change those forms I need to first understand them. I cannot change what is not pleasing to me without understanding the form as a whole first. I guess this would make me classical. I would find myself in greater agreement with the author concerning this dichotomy were it not for the importance that I attach to change. I believe that our place in this world is to both understand our environment and to be pleased or not to be pleased by our environment but also to take the extra step to change what needs to be changed and improve what needs to be improved. This requires both understandings: how somehing works, what purpose it serves, as well as its desirability.

Classical and Romantic

As the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance states, the classical mind sees what things are, breaking a thing down into parts and functions. The romantic mind sees what things mean, generally by looking at a thing as a whole. Take, for example, the old beer can that the narrator wanted to use as a shim: the classical mind sees the chemical composition of the metal which leads to its function as a shim while the romantic mind sees it as simply an old beer can. A classical understanding leads one to think in terms of components and small details while a romantic mind leads one to think of the larger picture.

As an artist, I have seen my work from both perspectives. When I am working on a painting, I consider the materials I am using and the composition of said materials, which will lead to the finished product having the desired colors and textures. However, I also take a figurative and literal step back from the work to consider what the piece as a whole will look like and, more importantly, what it represents.

I agree with the narrator that both classical and romantic understandings are valid ways of looking at the world. They are irreconcilable, however, because of the contrast of the viewpoints. One can’t think romantically and classically at the same time, simply because of the limits of the human brain. In the same way that a person can’t be in two places at once, a mind can’t be in two places at one time either.

classical vs romantic

as i see it classical thinking is a very scientific way of think. Seeing thing for what they are. Also the see thing for the straight facts and with a very clinical eye. They like to break thing apart and analysis what they see in front of them. Like know a remote control works because of the wires and signals inside not something like magic.

romantic thinking i think view things with personality and spirit and life even in inanimate objects. For example a house having a uplifting feel (or personality) or a spirit haunting you from it grave. It more of a creative and magical and given make believe story to pass of as reasoning for things in the world.

personally i think i think with a classical mind. I am no believer in spirits and ghost. i think that there are explanations for everything that happens. i just can except that thing just cant be explained.

I do agree with the statement that both are a good way to see the world but the clash and you must choice one way to see certain things in the world.

Classicism v. Romanticism

I must admit that I had difficulty answering this question. I wanted, at first, to be able to call myself a romantic thinker. It seems like a prestigious thing, to be able to look at the world with a mystical, artistic and altogether spiritual perspective. To be able to observe an object and to visualize a completely higher concept, to literally romanticize it, is certainly a skill whose possession I envy.

Try as I might, however, I have become disillusioned, and I believe that you will find that most of my peers share this jaded perspective. Certainly, as children, we were all romantics. Airplanes were the chariots of gods and rainbows were harbingers of the world's magic. We applied this mysticism to everything, too, and not merely the extraordinary. The world worked in ways that were, at once, unimaginable, inconceivable and absolutely, functionally coordinated.

As almost-adults, however, we educated masses have become disillusioned. We have learned the sciences of the Bernoulli Principle and electromagnetic wave refraction, and no longer are we cowed by airplanes or impressed by rainbows. By fully understanding a phenomenon, we remove from it that sense of mysticism and mystery. We lose the wonder that allows us to place a volcano or an automobile in the same mental space as fiction and folklore. Real life no longer captivates us when we can break it down into theories and laws.

Pirsig tells us that "both [Classicism and Romanticism] are valid ways of looking at the world while being irreconcilable with each other," and I agree. Both of these approaches are certainly valid, for it is possible to live as both a romantic and a classicist. However, it is also impossible to view something in both a Classical and a Romantic light. Once the laws governing an object have been classically divined, it is nigh impossible to return it to its romanticized state.

Classical vs. Romantic

Classical thinking consists of breaking things down. It deals with looking at a thing and dissecting it into multiple parts. A classical thinker is a thinker who traditionally focuses on the individual parts of a whole, and how those parts help to accomplish the goal of the whole. A romantic thinker will view an object a bit differently. The romantic thinker will look at the surface of an object and take it for what it is and not look a t the object's value past that. For me, how I look at an object really depends on that object. I see a car as a series of parts put together. The wheel connects to the cars axels, the axels turn the car, etc. However, the more complex something gets, the more I want to see it as just that object and nothing else. Perhaps it is my brain just saying "I don't get it!" but when I see something like an iPad, as Benny Schu mentioned, I just want to think "magic thingy that you can touch". I think I consider myself a classical thinker for things I can understand, and a romantic thinker for things I can't.  With the narrator, I agree that "both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." You cannot at the same time see one object as both classical and romantic. Once you see an object in terms of that "break down", you cannot simply see it on its surface, that is completely contradictory.

Classical vs. Romantic Thinking

According to the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, there are two ways of looking at the world, classically and romantically. To look at the world classically is to see things as more than they appear. You are able to take an object, any object, and break it up into its components. You can not only see this object for it's initial and obvious use, but for all types of uses. To think romantically is to see the the object, but to not think too much about it outside of its initial and obvious use. An example out of the book was when the narrator suggested his friend use a piece of beer can to make sure his handlebars stop sliding off. The narrator was thinking classically, breaking the beer can down to its components of being a made out of aluminum which rarely rusts or goes bad and would easily get the job done. However, the friend refused to think that a beer can could be used for anything more than just a beer can, thus his friend was thinking romantically. He saw the beer can as something that holds liquid, and was unable to break it up into its components.

I consider myself to be a classical thinker. Whenever I go on a backpacking trip, I have to pack my backpack. An important part about hiking is to pack as little as possible, but still being able to bring everything that you need. When I plan out what I have to bring I have to look at everything on my list classically, break this equipment down to their components, and see if I can possibly take things off my list and still be alright. For example, every trip I go on I bring a bandana with me. At first glance it looks like a piece of clothe. However, I am able to see it as a potential towel, a pillow, a bandage if someone requires first aid, a mark on a trail, pot holder, a simple camera cleaner, and a lot more. That's because I don't see the material as just a piece of clothe that can only be used to wrap around your head, but I see it as a tool that can be used for other potential tools. Thinking like this allows me to eliminate these objects from my list and makes my pack just that much lighter.

I agree with the narrator's statement that "both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” A person definitely has the ability to look at the world in both ways, but when it comes down to one topic, you are only going to to see it one way or the other, and not both. Thinking classically is the opposite of thinking romantically and it would be impossible to do both at the same time because they completely contradict each other. One person might not be able to see a bandana as a tool like I do, and a lot of times those people are going to overpack for the trip.

Classical vs. Romantic

In the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, our narrator distinguishes between two dichotomies: Classical and Romantic. A classical person is one who will "take apart," if you will, something. It can be an object or person, but they will disassemble it in order to understand each mechanism and its respective impact. A romantic person will simply look at the surface of an object or person, and not really give it much thought. A romantic person will, as the saying goes, judge a person by its cover.

We can be both classical or romantic, it really depends on our interests. It's not a matter of being one or the other. If I looked at something like, for instance, an iPad, I would look at it romantically. I would call it a worthless object and a waste of space. I see the iPad as having no real useful function.

If I am looking at something I find interesting however, I will look at it in a classic manner. Music, for example, is something I take a deep interest in. I will often find a new song which I take fascination to. After listening it for a while I will take it apart, dissect it, understand it. I will use "Stairway to Heaven" as an example. At first glance, people would perceive it as another rock song with the same old use of the four rock instruments: guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. But as I explored the song, I discovered that it also includes the use of four recorders, a twelve string guitar, and an electronic keyboard. Then I take it a step further. I look at the songs impact on music. How did it influence others? What sort of mythology and lore surrounds it? What impact does it have on music as a whole. What is the meaning of the song and what is its purpose? You might call me obsessed, but I'm merely thinking classically.

I agree with the narrator in the sense that "both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." Both ways of looking at something are polar opposites with one another. You can be both classic and romantic, but when it comes down to actually looking at something, you're going to interpret it one way or the other. You can't do it both ways. I can't say that a song like Stairway to Heaven is just another song when in reality I am fascinated by it.

Blog Post #7: Ways of Looking at the World

The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. Briefly articulate the distinction between the two. Then, explore how you fit into either of these dichotomies. Give examples that illustrate the tendencies that make you, personally, either classical and/or romantic. Conclude by discussing if you agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” (Chap. 7—a few pages in)

POST DUE: Thursday, May 13th by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Tuesday, May 18th by the start of class.

Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.

POSTING FOR QUESTION #6 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 6 (QUESTIONS ON COURTLY LOVE) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 6 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

B

b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?

It's no lie when they say that love can hurt, but even if you truly feel emotional duress during a relationship it doesn't mean that it's love. I'd say that the experience is signifigant because we feel pain. Well, it's significant in that you learn from it, but it's not more "vital". I once cared about someone so much that it hurt when we couldn't be together, but in retrospect, it wasn't love. I had mythologized him into what I concieved at the time to be my "soul mate", when in reality he was far from ideal. He was my first thought when I woke up in the morning and my last thought before I went to bed. My emotions took complete hold over me and I was an emotional mess. Though he told me that he felt the same way, a week later he was telling a close friend of mine the same nonsense. I think you could say that I loved the idea of him but having only a short time together that I didn't really know him well enough to actually love him. I believe that any painful emotional experience is signifigant as something to learn from in the future and possibly avoid but it is possible without what I consider to be true love (which I have yet to experience).

Question B

The experience is significant by itself. Pain is an indicator that something is wrong, not the cause of why we place significance on it. It's not as if the pain is coming from nowhere because of the situation. I wouldn't be surprised if I felt emotional duress after I broke up with someone. They were a huge part of my life and taking that away is going to damage me. Pain sucks and we remember pain very well, but it's more like part of the entire experience rather than the main reason why it's important. Anyway who disagrees must be a pretty severe narcissist, not even taking how other people affect them into account of their everyday thoughts.

To truly understand the answer to this question, we have to specify that the pain is limited to emotions, or if it is something more. True love, the kind romanticized by so many, is the kind that makes your stomach hurt or your tongue swell. To more accurately answer the question; we feel pain because the experience is significant, it is no fluke. True love is finding your significant other and giving yourself completely up to them, leaving no armor. While I have never experienced it myself, I have no way of proving it exists, but I have felt pain in terms of knowing who I belong with. The only problem is, if this is the perfect love, why should there even be a prospect of pain? Shouldn't the desire never be to hurt one another? The pain is synonimous to being in love. We take the chance of being hurt when we choose love. And while we never mean to inflict pain, it is inevitable. We cant help ourselves, but men are from mars and woman are from venus, and that naturally leads to tension.

A.

Courtly love in the Medievel period was very strict and it was followed like rules to a game. Some of these rules included not being able to show your love to others while in public or else it wouldnt be real love. Another of these rules includes paying for your lovers marraige and children when they get married. In other words, you pay for them to stay away from you. These rules seem rediculous. You shouldnt try to hid your love from the other person when your in public, you should express your love openly if you actually truly love them. Other peoples thoughts or expressions shouldnt matter and shouldnt change how you feel for each other. For example in the story of Lancelot, When his lover shows she is openly in love with him, he ignores her. Later in the story he tells her that he will pay all her generations if she should find another husband. Just the thought of this is rediculous. If someone doesnt love someone then they shouldnt have to pay them or take care of their future family. They should simply say that they dont have the same feeling for each other and just leave them be.

B

I believe that the pain we feel when in love is not a coincidence. We feel that pain because the experience we are having is significant. When we are in love we open up to others and give them the chance to hurt us. We put ourselves in a very vulnerable position. If you did not care about the person you were with, or really anything, then they could not hurt you. Love is not easy or anything like what we are brought up on. We hear stories of the perfect romance but once it is time to be in an actual relationship we have to learn that it is not really like that. Love can be difficult and since it is such a significant experience that leaves us vulnerable, the difficulty often brings us pain.

C

I personally feel that courtly love is an illegitimate form of love. People may think that it is legitimate because they feel that that is the way someone should be treated by their lover. I feel that courtly love was more of a way to express your fondness towards the other person, not necessarily true love. Back then, courtly love was used to express lust and it was a set of guidelines on how to treat another person, that was not necessarily your spouse, but that you felt lust for. Love on the other hand can contain some aspects of courtly love, however I strongly feel that they do not mean the same thing. Love is more of a passionate affection for another person where as courtly love is the polite treatment of someone you have an affair with. Comparing it with an example from today's society, it would be like someone cheating on their spouse. They might still love their spouse, but they feel the need to sleep with another person who they do not necessarily love. This does not mean that they will leave their spouse. Courtly love, in this case is simple how they would treat the person they are having an affair with.

B

I do not think that the emotional pain of loving someone is a coincidence, it's just common sense, really. Opening one's self up leaves you vulnerable. For someone like me, though, who is very skeptical of the idea of love in the first place, those painful feeling are what make the experience significant. If something provokes us to feel that way, then it must mean something important, or at least teach us something. The simple (in my opinion) act of "loving" is not enough to make us feel pain. We feel pain because our feelings are complex, and most likely not just "love".

Response to Question C

Courtly love should really be compared more to match-making than to lust. Courtly love was, as Tim pointed out, very formulaic and it followed many societal rules in that people of similar classes, whom would often be an attractive match conveniently “fell in love” and were generally married. Courtly love is very archaic and reminds one of primal tendencies to pick the most attractive, youthful appearing mate because they are likely to be fertile, etc. Courtly love is not blind. In this way, it is very unlike lust. Lust is quite blind, but in a more short-term way than love is. Courtly love, however, is certainly very unlike love as well, for it involves no knowledge about the person other than social standing and appearance. Courtly love is often, as we read, “lust from far away”-and even if it is long-lasting it is usually a very shallow attachment.

The Pain of Courtship

In response to Question B.

It's a well known fact that emotional pain is closely linked to loss. It's no wonder that there is a direct correlation between suicide and unemployment, or that there are higher rates of depression in disaster zones and war-torn countries.

Much like self-fulfillment or worldly possessions are important to us, so too is the ideal of love, of belonging and respect and affection and the ever-present biological impulse of eros. The loss of a loved one (by death or otherwise) is just as devastating as the loss of a life-long career or a toiled-over home. In fact, Abraham Maslow puts the psychological need for love and belonging as more necessary than self-esteem and respect but less basic than one's safety and physiological demands on his famous Hierarchy of Needs. According to Maslow, the loss of a man's self-esteem, respect for himself and others, self-confidence and achievement is less devastating than the loss of his love and sense of belonging.

To answer your question, the pain of love happens because love is an important need, not the other way around. The general misunderstanding is that the pain that accompanies the loss of romantic love is something special, something unique. This pain is no different from the pain of losing a job, a friend or a home.

c

I feel that courtly love is a legitimate kind of love. Many could argue why courtly love is an illegitimate love. This is mainly because courtly love is typically soiled in perpetual desire and lust between a knight and a noblewoman and sprouted into something more, which society was not willing to except. The love however, was much more legitimate in many more aspects then say a nobleman and noblewoman’s love. Marriage between a nobleman and noblewoman was often arranged. The two parties married rarely felt love for eachother. The marriage was used as a political tool rather than because of love. Courtly love happened between knights and married noblewomen. Knights were bound to the code of chivalry, so they would be good to the noblewoman. I therefore don’t feel that the nights were simply lusting after the noblewomen. They were in fact in love or trying to love the married noblewoman.

C.

i believe that courtly love is just an excuse for eros. i dont think it should count as love. i think that for there to be love between to people there need to be more then infatuation and secret affairs. yes i do understand that in this time period marrige was just for making babies but still atleast your husband is a stable figure and not flacky and can deny you at any time in public like courtly love state you should. i believe that courtly love back then was purely out of lust and desire for smething you cant have. it there need to get rid of the feel of want that they think is "love".
like the knight can formally speak to his "damsel" in public or even acknowledge she there and i honestly doubt that the time they do spend together there sitting around talk about there lifes. also the fact that the cant really get to know each other with out have the risk of comment something about the other private life.

B

I do not believe that the emotional pain felt along with love is a coincidence, I think that the pain is a direct result of the love and we feel pain because the experience is significant. I believe that most times, emotional pain is a result of opening oneself up completely and making oneself vulnerable. We are only hurt emotionally by other people when we allow ourselves to be, when we give others the power to hurt us. If you never really cared much about anything, you would never really be hurt, but since love is such a significant experience, allowing one to open up and feel strongly about something or someone, that person is subjecting themselves to pain.

C.

courtly love is not a legitimate type of love as it offers now new concepts to our idea of love, but is more of a set of guidelines of how to love someone. whereas our modern idea of love involves pain and devotion and truthfulness, courtly love is more of a way to engage with someone that you are fond of, similar to a dating guide i suppose, but regardless of whether you follow the rules of courtly love or not, there is still a love between people and courtly love is just a way of expressing that love.

Question B

I think that it's obvious to say that the only reason why break-ups and "heartbreak" is so painful because we feel pain, but I don't believe that is completely true. Yes, human beings feel pain therefore many things that we do in life can result in physical or emotional pain, but I think the reason why we feel pain is because the experience that a person may go through is significant. I think it's really the experience that has an impact because not everyone's situation is the same. For some people it may be a break-up with someone whom you have fallen in love with for the first time. Many people will often tell you that they remember their first love because you experience being open and trusting with another person for the first time. Others remember experiences where the person may have treated you badly whether it's physical, emotionally, or just by being unfaithful. It's the experience like many things in life that teach you to hopefully not stay with the same kinds of people. We feel pain because when your in love you have to be open to possibly getting hurt even though you hope you don't. You have to completelylet your guard down and accept the fact that you may get hurt. I personally accept that things may not go like I want them to go and it's okay to feel the pain the comes after because it's just the body's way of dealing with a let down. Even in those relationships where strong feelings may not have developed I think people still take away some kind of message from it.

Question 6A

Courtly love, or the "fine love," emerged as a romantic concept of a stylized relationship between a nobleman, a knight, and his beloved, a lady of the court, in the Middle Ages that involved a number of rules and principles which pertained to the ideal of a love more genuine than the common arranged marriage. It also touched on the concepts of nobility and chivalry, both central to aristocratic life in Medieval Europe. Capellanus, with his book "The Art of Courtly Love," was one of the first authors to address and elaborate on the concept. He included over 30 rules of love (31), which defined the nature and boundaries of courtly love as well as its scope, the effects and the course that it took, or was supposed to take, in the lives of those who experienced it.

Is courtly love a behavioral ideal that one can or should try to follow when loving someone? In my opinion, we are all creatures of our own time and space and our thinking, values, standards and norms of behavior to a large extent bear the markings of the socio-economic relations and cultural lives of our period. Today, at least in principle, we associate the concepts of love and marriage with one another. We do not say, or believe, that we should marry one person and love another. That throws the first rule of courtly love, that "Marriage should not be a deterrent to love," right out the window. Nor many people today would agree with the assertion that "it is necessary for a male to reach the age of maturity in order to love," as maintained by Capellanus.

That is not to say that all of Capellanus' observations, or "rules," are irrelevant or outdated. Still love "waxes and wanes" and I suppose "the sight of one's beloved causes palpitations of the heart" even today. I also think the rule that "a lover should not love anyone who would be an embarrassing marriage choice" continues to be a sound one, even though nowadays it cannot be said that "public revelation of love is deadly to love in most instances," not unless you are a married politician!

I guess what I want to say, in short, is that every period has its own rules and ideals and although some transcend time others do not and "courtly love" is no exception.

Response A

Alot of "The Art of Courtly Love", or just courtly love in general, seems very systematic, formulaic, strict. All of these are the exact opposite of what love is meant to be and what it should be. At least in terms of modern culture and film, love should be spontaneous. It should come from a natural connection (or attraction) to another person. It shouldn't come from silly rules like: always do (insert gentlemanly action here) before speaking to a woman. if a man does not do this, he should be ignored. This is just a generalization of courtly love, but it is mostly true. What this does is it turns love into a system almost. If you don't fit the system you are out. The last thing it seems to emphasize is actual connection, and to me that is just strange and wrong.

B

We all feel pain for one reason or another, whether physical or emotional. The pain of a break-up of a relationship is an emotional pain with which many people have a hard time coping with. This pain is felt because that relationship had such a significant impact on their lives. Relationships that last bring many good times to both of the people in a relationship with one another. They enjoy each others company, they enjoy the time they spend with one another doing whatever. They essentially devote every waking moment to one another in order to keep each other happy because they want to stay with each other. When a relationship ends or hits a rough, they feel pain because the experience with each other is such a big part of their life, and has such a massive impact on it. Think of all of the people who have done something stupid or insane just because of a bad break-up. It is because they love that person and will do anything for them.

B.

I think that both the experience of loving someone is significant because we feel pain and we feel pain because the experience is significant.
Loving someone is significant in our lives because we feel pain. This other person is very important in their life and if they leave or something happens to part the couple, then one will definitley feel pain. Being so attached to something and then just loosing it is really hard. Something in your life is missing and you will feel pain from it which will make the experience significant. But we also feel pain because the experience is significant. Society is made to think that falling in love is a huge deal and that being heartbroken is a tragedy that few recover from. The experience of love is significant because of all the fuss about it. The media has us thinking that it is the biggest and greatest experience of our lives and so when we loose it, we feel pain because it is so significant. The emotional pain of loving someone is not a coincidence. The experience is definitely somewhat vital. Being around someone for so long and having so many feelings for them is emotional and the pain isn't fake. Although it may be overdone because of how society makes us believe that love is everything, it is still real, and not a coincidence.

B.

It is human condition to want affection from other beings. It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. Love absolutely hurts people who are blinded in what they conceive as true love. I don't believe that the pain is a coincidence. Love is the source of the pain. We feel the pain because we are brought up on myths and mysteries of "true" love. However, humans learn best through experience, and what they conceive as true love isn't always it. They are tricked. That explains all the divorce in the United States anyway. But because we are able to learn from our mistakes, it makes the conception of what we think is love significant. It makes people stronger. Time heals all wounds, and once they are healed people can take the knowledge of what they've learned through this significant experience in order to continue their search for their soul mate. Sort of like a trial and error test. So, we feel pain in order to gain the most from the experience because heartbreak can be significant to changing a person's life and allow them to continue spreading the love.

Blog Post #6: Courtly Love

In light of our readings and discussions on courtly love (Capellanus’s De Arte Honesti Amandi and Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur), answer one of the following:

a. Reflect on the rules and customs of the courtly love tradition began in the Medieval period. Is courtly love a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone? You should make reference to at least one of the texts we’ve looked concerning courtly love.

b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?

c. Explain if you believe that courtly love is a legitimate kind of love or just a way of making eros or lust more socially acceptable. To do this, explore the aspects of courtly love that seem to separate it from eros.

POST DUE: Wednesday, March 24 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, March 26 by the start of class.

POSTING FOR QUESTION #5 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 5 (ROMAN VIEWS OF HAPPINESS) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 5 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

Epicureans vs. Stoics

I think if I was asked at a young age if I were an Epicurean or a Stoic, I would definitely say Epicurean. They live in the moment. Seize the day. As a young person that's exactly what you want to do. Spend nice summer days with your friends without any worry in the world. You enter the world and it's tough, but to overcome diversity is sweet. Live without any pain. No emotions. No attachments. It makes perfect sense. Without any pain or stress, you can only live with pleasure and happiness in the day, and can only hope to be just as happy the next. But wait. Kids form attachments to the smallest of things. Teddy bears, a blanket, their parents. To live without attaching yourself to anything would be like living as a Spartan boy. You grow up to only become a warrior. Your mother gives you up at an early age, and you are forced to fend for yourself. This is the only way people can't form attachments: by learning not to attach at an early age. Otherwise, you will have pain, suffering, and other things. More realistically people will have experienced heartbreak: maybe from a lover, or maybe from the loss of a loved one. A person, therefore, must accept that, and learn to avoid and/or fight these sorrows head one. You can be happy, but some things are just more important sometimes. I think that I am a epicurean because I form attachments and make plans to be happy in the future instead of not knowing day to day. I plan to go to college, and live my life, and get a good job, and make a good income for my family. Once I reach these goals I will be satisfied with my life.

P.S. to Mr. B,
I have not had internet access. Sorry for it being late. Will bring note to class.

Epicurean vs Stoicism

As much as I would like to be a stoic, for the lone reason that their philosophy is based on living in the moment and living for today not thinking about tomorrow I feel that as I get older I am slowly leading towards an Epicurean point of view. When your younger I believe you tend to look for short-term happiness because as a teenager you realize that no one is immortal and one day you'll have to act like a grown up. However towards the end of high school adults, teachers or parents, make it clear that you can't only focus on the short-term because in the end you won't be prepared for life. An adult tries to plan ahead and for the future. They want to make sure that when they reach a certain age they won't have any worries of any kind and be set for the rest of their life. I think that this dimension of age also plays a role in whether people will have an epicurean point of view on life or a stoics.

Roman views of happiness

Epicurean's look for long term happiness, and a happy life as a whole, where Stoics look for short term happiness, or happiness from day to day. I feel that Epicurean's views of happiness are more of a way of life avoidance that that of the stoics. They do not look to enjoy life from day to day, and make many sacrifices in order to live an overall happy life. I feel that one should live each day to the happiest and best we can. Though I make sacrifices of happiness, such as putting time aside in my afternoon to do homework and going to school on Monday through Friday, I still try to put aside time to have fun with friends every day. The stoics look for pleasure every day, which I think makes them embrace life rather than avoid it.

Stoicism & Epicureanism

Although I admit I am still not totally sure I understand Stoic and Epicurean philosophies, what I believe to be the major difference between the two is the timeframe that each one focuses on. Stoics seem to focus more pleasure in the here and now, while Epicureans view happiness as a more long term process. While I try to live my life as more of a stoic, thinking about what would make me happy in that exact moment, i realize that a lot of things i do are a result of Epicurean thinking. I do consider the immediate effect and how i will feel directly after making a decision, I think a large part of the decision making process is considering what the long-term effect will be. For example, it's saturday and my friends call me to see if i want to hang out. I do, but i also know that i have a huge project due the following monday. Going out with my friends would make me happier in the moment, but i know that getting a good grade in the class would make me happier in the long run so i would probably opt for the project. For this reason i think that Epicureanism plays a larger role in society today, but stoic beliefs are not ignored.

ROMAN VIEWS OF HAPPINESS

epicurean philosophy looks towards the long term of form of happiness meanwhile Stoic philosophy look towards immediate pleasures.
i believe both philosophy are right to a certain extent. for Stoics they are just following what they want witch is immediate pleasure. u cant really blame them for want that to me it just like a natural instinct that they willing give into. and in a way they don't need to plan for the future since if you keep living in the present your looking for constant pleasure and that turns into your future.
but for Epicureans they want to look ahead to achieve there future goals and are willing to sacrifice immidaite or future pleasures. to me they are like kids saving up money to buy a expansive toy the see all the other kids buy small cheap things but there willing to wait for the big prize.
to me both seem like a good way to go about life just one requires more patience and the other is very fickle.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Epicureans seek happiness in the avoidance of pain. Stoics seek happiness in indifference to pain. These philosophies are at odds with each other because they differ at a base level: the idea of pain. Epicureans see pain as an unpleasant thing, something to be avoided at all costs, while stoics see pain as something to cope with. To a stoic, happiness is an idea and so is sorrow. If you can control the way you think about things, as is the stoic way, then you can be happy even when in pain (not to bring up masochism). Epicureans avoid pain, but they might accuse stoics of avoiding reality because, to an epicurean, pain always leads to suffering. Stoics simply do not see the connection between pain and suffering as an unbreakable one.

For example, allow me to introduce Bob the Epicurean and Steve the Stoic. They are both in Mr. Boswell’s Humanities class, and the final exam is fast approaching. They both know that the exam is going to be full of pain if they don’t study for it. In an effort to avoid this pain, Bob the Epicurean studies his notes on the class. Steve the Stoic, however, knows that he can control his response to the pain of the exam and he can be happy. During the exam, Bob knows the answers and avoids the pain of failing. Steve has a happy attitude and fails miserably. After the exam, both are happy.

Stoicism seems the more logical philosophy to me because a stoic can be as happy as s/he wishes, no matter their lot in life, while an epicurean must constantly struggle to make choices that will bring them the least amount of pain.

Roman Views of Happiness

I'm not exactly sure I quite understand what the two philosophies mean, but this is what I think they mean. Epicureans way of living is to think about long-term happiness, and how their actions in the present will better contribute to their future happiness. Stoics believe in happiness in the present and the short-term pleasure. They believe that if you do things that make you happy at that moment, then you will always be happy. Stoics try to make the most of the day, and not bother doing anything that makes them unhappy.
I think that both ideas are really interesting. I don't think I can choose one I like more though. I like the Epicurean philosophy because I think you should do things that you may not like now, so that you can succeed in the future. For example going through school so that you can get a good job, and getting a good job so you can live comfortably and happily.
I like the Stoic philosophy because I have always wanted to live in the moment and I always admired people that did. If it wasn't the cultural norm to go to high school, then college, then work, I don't think I would. I would do things that make me happy on a day-to-day basis. I would live my life to the fullest and not do anything that I don't want to do. Why wouldn't I be happy in the future if everyday I did something that made me happy? The answer to that is I would be happy. I would forever be happy because I would only do what I want.
I don't think this is a great way to run society but I think it would be so fun to try it out.
Both philosophies are really interesting, but I don't know if I can choose one I like better.

A Defense of Stoicism

True Stoicism, much like truth or absolution in anything, is an abstraction. If a life's experience is defined as a series of emotional responses to external stimuli (a common, though not necessarily Stoic definition), then he who calls himself a true Stoic is either a liar or not truly living at all. It is the rare (and, often, comatose) man who can completely repress the emotions of joy and sorrow, of lust and anguish, of fear and loathing. I, personally, can not avoid feeling or expressing great pain or ecstasy, no matter how much I attempt to contain myself and the emotional stirrings within.

However, just because true Stoicism is an impossibility does not mean it can not be an excellent model for modern living. Indeed, for those educated in its ways, Stoicism appears to be the most logical path to a life completely devoted to progress, accomplishment and self-fulfillment. Too often are we so bogged down in our internal drive to experience great lengths of physical and psychological pleasure that the higher and more honorable quests for accomplishment are forgotten and cast aside. Think of how many more papers Einstein could have written had he not been forced to wrangle with his infamous marital issues, or how great Napoleon's empire would have been had he not allowed his romantic troublings cloud his judgment.

The Epicurean believes that the ultimate goal of a lifetime is gradual pleasure, but even this thinking is flawed. Even the most minute pleasure steals effort from less selfish ventures. Who wants to live this way? I don't, and I don't know anyone who does. However, those who do have the tools and the capability to live a life that is fulfilled to its highest potential.

Stoicism vs Epicureanism

I believe that our society is more Epicurean than Stoic. School is based on the principle of a better future. The happiness and satisfaction of a good education comes after you finish high school and then again after you finish college if you choose to do so. Although everyone would like to be more like a stoic, enjoying life and living in the moment, its not always best in the long run. For example: someone who enjoys the rush of gambling and chooses to gamble on a daily basis will enjoy their life especially when they win big. But the chances of losing are much greater than the chances of winning. Therefore they will eventually run out of money trying to satisfy their addiction and will be unhappy. So although a stoic lifestyle would a lot of fun it wouldn't be as wise as if you lived a Epicurean lifestyle.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Epicureans choose not to indulge in actions that would allow them happiness for only a short period of time, but instead think about long-term happiness. Stoics, on the other hand, prefer to find happiness in smaller periods. I mostly agree with the Epicurean point-of-view, because I think that planning ahead makes me happier than if I were to only focus on the present. Looking at "the long run" makes me more comfortable. Take the often used example of school: I am planning on doing my homework and getting good grades so that I will graduate and continue on to do something that I really care about and enjoy. Because of this, I sometimes have to do things that make me unhappy (work). A stoic would skip the homework and partake in something more enjoyable, but may not do well enough to get into, say, a good college. For this reason, I feel more secure looking at life in an Epicurean way.

Roman Views of Happiness

I'm going to be honest. Sitting in a classroom and being given the dictionary definition of a Stoic or an Epicurean; it's difficult for me to get a grasp on what they truly mean. However, assuming my interpretations of both are correct, I believe the Epicureans have the right idea. Stoics are all about a sort of divine inspiration. They see happiness as a strategy for survival. Survival? Thats not the first word that pops into mind when I think of happiness. I think the Stoics are missing the point that happiness is a component of a good life. They believe that everything happens for a reason. They preach an aprohairotic principle, in other words; no control. It does seem like a sort of life-avoidance when viewed in the Stoic light. Why go through life simply trying to get to the next day. The whole concept of low regard for oneself on the surface may seem pretty pleasant. However, it doesnt mean that esteem is going towards the benefit of the society.
The Epicurean philosophy despite being superior, in my opinion, still has some flaws. It seems very similar to the teachings of Buddhism though, doesnt it? The idea of peace of mind, and realease from pain on the surface seems very pleasant. However, there is just something missing. Is it truly that simple? No, it praises the idea of simple pleasures, however, the bodily desires are seen as inhibiting the body's potential. For instance, we are allowed to eat, but to eat too much would cause one to stray from the path. Maybe thats not such a bad thing, cutting down on eating. However, we have all had that time where we just want to bloat ourselves. This philosophy prevents that. While it preaches on enjoying life's simple pleasures, it denies us those pleasures we take for granted.

Epicurean vs Stoic

Epicureans seek happiness in their lives as a whole, thinking about how their actions will affect them in the long run. Their ultimate goal is peace of mind. Stoics on the other hand seek more immediate happiness, focusing more on the here and now. They accept everything as it is, believing that everything that happens is for the best. Although I believe that the Stoic practice of accepting the universe as it is with no regrets and no fear of death is great, I believe that Epicureanism is the better philosophy. Although I would love to spend my time just hanging out with friends I don’t, instead I spend my time with schoolwork and extracurricular activities. I do this because although hanging out with friends would give me immediate happiness in the long run it would only do me harm. I would end up stressed out at 3 in the morning doing all my work last minute or I would simply do poorly in school. With bad grades and no extracurricular activities I would be unable to get into a good college. Without a college degree I would be unable to get a job that pays well and that I enjoy doing. Instead I do what my not be as much fun now so that in the future I can have a happy and fulfilling life.

Epicureanism vs. Stoicism

Logically, I think we are more of an Epicurean society. Much of our society is based on long term happiness, even if it causes annoyance in the short term. At the minimum, people spend 16 years (12 Elementary-High School, 4 College) of their lives being educated. Of course, a good majority of us do not enjoy a healthy amount of tasks we are given. I don't like doing math at all, but I must do well in it to go to another school (college), where I must do well in order to graduate and begin the career that all of this work has led to. If you want to be a doctor, Epicureanism is the way to go. If being a doctor will make you happy, you must spend 20 years possibly of schooling to achieve this goal. This is something that would surely along the way contain numerous tedious tasks you do not enjoy, but after all that work, you would achieve your happiness goal.
Stoicism is more about short term happiness. My instincts often tell me to sit around doing nothing and forget about my work until the very last second, because I like TV and Video games more than homework. However, I must think about "Future Tim". I don't want Future Tim to be up late and be stressed because Present Tim wanted to watch TV. Also, Future Tim wouldn't do well on his test if he was very stressed. While "living in the moment" and always doing what gives you instant happiness can work for a while, eventually it leads to the opposite effect.

Stoicism Vs. Epicureanism

I believe that stoicism is a more realistic view of life so it is therefore a better view. if you are Epicurean and spend your entire life searching for endless pleasure you will be unable to comprehend the bad things that happen to you in your life, as bad things happen to everyone. whereas where a stoic will be able to accept these things and move on, an Epicurean will not know how to react as they seek a sheltered existence. There is a time for both pleasure and pain in life, Stoics realize this and that there is no way to have one without having the other, there is no pleasure without pain and there is no pain without pleasure. stoics realize that you have to balance the two in order to have a meaningful existence.

Epicureanism vs Stoicism

I, on the other hand, find the philosophies of Epicureanism and Stoicism to be those of living life to the fullest, not one of life-avoidance; albeit each philosophy achieving this objective through different means. Regardless of what the epicureans or the stoic philosophers might say about each other, I believe that they are not avoiding life as they each define it.

Epicureans try to maximize happiness and minimize pain thoughout their lives, not just day by day, which requires, on the part of the epicurean, long-term thought and planning. Epicureans believe that the only evil is pain and that the only good is happiness in the form of peace of mind or tranquility; to get rid of the pain, one needs to get rid of thoughts of death. For example, facing the death of a loved one, an epicurean, instead of being preoccupied with the inevitable grief, would try to come to terms to it, accept it (not avoid it) and move on (not dwell on the pain as most people would do for long periods of time). While in the eyes of many this would not be appropriate respect to the dead, for the epicurean dwelling on this pain would not maximize the happiness in one's life, it would diminish it.

Stoics embrace the true nature of things as they see it, embrace their place in the universe and accept the notion that the leading principle of the world is reason, thus everything which happens in the world is not only natural, but also for the best. This force of reason is not to be confused with cold indifference; reason is aimed for the good of the whole. Stoics lead their lives day by day (seize the day), not knowing whether each day is their last; focusing on only those things which are in their control. One major factor which is not in the control of any one person is fate. For example, when the time comes to die, you should not fight it, just accept that your time on earth is done and die. Like an epicurean, stoics maintain that death is a part of life and should not be dwelled upon. Contrary to what an epicurean philosopher might maintain, a stoic neither denies the notion of happiness or pleasure. But for them these notions are to be found in the world as is, a world governed by order and reason. So the question, in my view, is not that of life-avoidance, but of embracing different visions of life and all that it entails, including pleasure, happiness, order and reason.

Epicurean or Stoic?

Epicureans look for long term happiness over the course of life, while Stoics try to seek happiness in short durations. I try to look at life through a stoic perspective, simply because its easier to generate happiness over short periods of time as opposed to happiness in the long run. From the point of an Epicurean, me going to school for the last eleven or so years in order to get my diploma next may so that I may further my completion of goals in order to achieve my vision really makes me wonder if it is all really worth it. At what point do I say that it is? From a stoic point of view, I could find pleasure in something as simple as eating a cheeseburger, or even better, a Chipotle burrito. Of course I would not do this every day, but there are so many options in order to generate short term pleasure as opposed to that in the long run. I'm more of a "live in the moment" sort of person. Take it in, enjoy it while I can. Sure I may not enjoy the academic part of school, but the social part I enjoy. In a year or so I may never see my friends here again. Why wouldn't I enjoy each little moment I have left?

Epicurean vs Stoic

As discussed in class an Epicurean finds happiness in the long term goals while a Stoic aims for more immediate happiness. I feel that it would be better to look at life from an Epicurean view point. I feel this mainly because if you try hard for a longterm goal then you will view your life as being happy later on. For example, if i were to wake up every morning and go to school to learn and get my highschool diploma and eventually go to collage, then I will most likely become somewhat succesful later in life. This will allow me to do what i want to do later and I will then be happy. When looking at this from a Stoic point of view, they may see them selves as doing what makes them happy every day leading to ultimate happiness. I personally dont think that this would lead to overall happiness because i like to look at things in the long term, and when looking at this philosophy in the long term i can see some flaws with it. If i did the things that make me happy everyday such as skiing, it is fairly expensive and it would soon drain my funds. Although skiing is a large part of my life eventually I would have to stop because i would not have the means to pay for it anymore. It is important to have a mixture of short term and long term happiness in life in order to achieve the ultimate goal of overall happiness.

Blog Post #5: Roman Views of Happiness

An epicurean might see a stoic as foolish since they condemn their natural urges and do not hold in high esteem personal happiness. A stoic might criticize the epicurean aim of a life with minimal pain since it seems to dismiss the pleasure that can be found in achieving a difficult goal and overcoming adversity. In short, each see the other’s philosophy as one of life-avoidance.

Weigh in on this debate, articulating your point of view. Please back up your opinions with an explanation and specific examples. Feel free to bring in other dimensions of these philosophies discussed in class (the role of experience and our thoughts in our happiness, the role of duty--those things we may not want to do but need to do--in our happiness, etc.)

POST DUE: Tuesday, February 9 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Thursday, February 11 by the start of class.

Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.

POSTING FOR QUESTION 4 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 4 (ON LOGIC) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 4 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

LATE CREDIT FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE, SINCE QUARTER 2 HAS ENDED.

THANKS,

Mr. B

"A"

I agree with J.W. Krutch when he says that, "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Philosophers such as Aristotle and Euclid both had a lot of faith in what they believed in when coming to their own conclusions. From Aristotle's rules on logic to Euclid when proving the basic principles of geometry. When we had to make up logical problems in class we went in with the intent of making the logical problems truthful, especially because we've never really studied logic in depth before. You have to have confidence in what you write down even if you know you may not be right.

A

Logic is not one going wrong with confindence, I believe that the author of this quote finds logic as a way to unrealistically explain something. I believe that with a complete argument, logic can be used to fully argue and explain points simpler. With logic a complex argument can be simplified into corresponding points that can be easily explained. Many points are better explained with this idea of using logic.

A

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

I agree with this statement because you can almost never get something completely correct the first time around. Mastering something involves trail and error. My coach used to tell us that even if we didn't know the play that was called to do it 100%. I think the same applies for logic. When trying to prove something logical or making a logical argument you have to do it with confidence. Even if your statement may be wrong you are trying to prove to others that your statement is correct even if it means doing something wrong. Logical statements aren't always true.

A.

Logic is simply the result of taking ideas that we believe to be true and using reasoning to create a solid argument that can not be proved wrong. This definition of logic seems pretty logical itself untill you take into account the fact that just because something is commonly believed to be true does not necessarily mean it is a fact regardless of whether anyone can prove it to be incorrect or not. This is why I agree that "logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Logic is based on confidence that one's ideas are factual, but because we are only human it is impossible to prove whether anything is truly a fact or just a well-proven theory. Therefore logic can produce good arguments and reasoning, but I do not think it can ever really produce facts.

quote a

I agree with the statement “logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.” As we learned in class, there are rules governing what is logical and what is illogical. A logical statement can be seen as valid because it follows these rules. However, the statement could have an untrue premise. The person who said the statement would seem logical and correct when in truth they were completely wrong. You could be being logical but wrong. You however sound confident because you are making an argument.

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

I agree with J.W Krutch in that logic is not necessarily true, just something that one can defend. The concept of logic is based more around what is more likely to be true than what actually is, and I think that judging things based on logic is generally a smart way to do so.
Unfortunately, people can disagree on the terms of what is or is not logical, and so being overly concerned with logic can pose a problem, especially in, say, a social situation where human emotions can conflict with logic.

Quote A

I usually associate Logic as being the truth. J.W. Krutch on the other hand feels the opposite by saying “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.” meaning that logic is not true. What J.W. Krutch is saying is that you can be logical and wrong. Many people think as i thought that logic needs to be truthful therefore disagreeing with this statement. But when reading this statement, I think back to what we have learned in class which is validity vs truth. With this knowledge I agree with J.W. Krutch's statement because I view logic as a type of argument and we learned that an argument can be valid and also false. Logic is mainly how you explain your self and as long as you can explain yourself it does not matter weather it is true or not.

Quote A

American writer, critic, and naturalist J.W. Krutch once said “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.” While I certainly don't believe that logic is solely the art of going wrong, I do believe that confidence is a big part of logic and that while logic may prove validity, it does not necessarily always prove truth. Over the past week or so I have learned the difference between validity and truth. Before going more in depth with the issue, i always sort of regarded validity and truth as the same thing. I now know, however, that something can be valid but not true. Deductive reasoning seems to instill confidence in people because it makes sense, but that doesn't mean it is the truth. A conclusion is drawn from two premises that are accepted as true by the reasoner based on his or her knowledge and experiences, but because the truth of these premises are based on the individual, they do not have to be true. For example there was a psych study done in which researchers tried to convince people that brushing your teeth was bad. Now, we all know that's not true, but when presented with a logical explanation and maybe some statistics, one would be surprised at the number of people who actually believed that brushing your teeth was harmful. The statement was proven to these people to be valid by logic and deductive reasoning, but it still wasn't the truth. So while confident in their logic, these people were still wrong.