Meaningfulness

Pihlstrom states, "That is, the fact that no final answers, either substantial or methodological, to our worries about meaningfulness have been or ever can be given...as well as the fact that we...inevitably find ourselves guilty...might be taken to be a among the key potential sources of meaning in our lives. These might be fragile and definitely less than fully consoling sources of meaning, but they might be sources nonetheless." Can we really find meaningfulness in the lack of answers in the universe? On a personal level, I am often grateful for our lack of answers, or lack of access to answers, because it allows for me to always have plenty to think about. I like always being able to think and wonder and speculate, because when you know an answer, you generally stop thinking about it. But the fact that there are some things we can never know, what our purpose is, for example, means that we never outgrow our need to think about them. However, I don't usually think of this as a way to get meaning out of my life, I just like not knowing sometimes. Or is that what makes it meaningful? Maybe I'm not understanding "meaningful" correctly. What makes not knowing a meaningful experience? Is pleasure enough to make it meaningful, or does meaning have to be a little more complex than that? 

Guilt and Morality

How influential is guilt in determining our moral character? The author suggests that guilt "...is such a fundamental moral category that it plays a constitutive role in the ways in which we conceptualize our ethical relations to others. Without experiencing guilt, or at least being able to do so, we would hardly be capable of employing any ethical concepts or judgments. We have to able to acknowledge guilt, to see ourselves as guilty, in order to acknowledge responsibility for our actions." That's obviously a pretty big claim to make. I agree that guilt does play a very big role in our morality, and that the basis for a lot of our actions, or non-actions, is guilt. I agree that it helps us to accept responsibility for our actions. However, although it is quite obvious that guilt is a very effective tool for morality, I am still wondering if guilt is completely necessary. Can one be moral, or develop good moral character, without the influence of guilt? Thoughts, anyone? 

Guilt and Accountability

Are we accountable for our emotions? What about our thoughts? Can a thought or emotion be immoral, or only an action? When should we feel guilty? Can guilt be both good and bad depending on the circumstances? These are a few of the questions that came to my mind while reading the article and discussing it in class. Personally, I believe that we can only be held accountable for our actions, not our emotions or thoughts. I believe it is possible to have objectively immoral thoughts or emotions in certain circumstances, but as long as you are not acting immorally such things are not condemnable and you should not feel guilty for them. I do not believe that you have any control over how you feel or think. I do think that you might, after a lot of practice, hard work, and determination, be able to change your opinions or attitudes about a particular matter, but that is a very particular sect of thought and you cannot assume that all thought processes could be changed so easily. If you have no real control over your thoughts or emotions then you are not accountable for them. You are only to be held accountable for your actions, and immoral actions are the only things you should feel guilty for. There is no point in feeling guilty about anything that is outside of your control, it is not healthy to feel guilt about such things. The proper time to feel guilty is when you knew an action was immoral and you chose to do it anyways. 

Student-Teacher Relationship

There were several questions that bothered me while reading, two being what are the appropriate hopes and boundaries between teachers and students? I mean, what can teachers and students reasonably hope to gain from one another and what are the appropriate, if any, boundaries between teachers and students? I think that both teachers and students should hope that all of their arguments are being carefully listened to, evaluated, and criticized. Teachers should be able to hope for students that accept their teaching on more than blind faith to authority, because they deserve more than that. Students should be able to hope for teachers who will value their point of view instead of ignoring it. They should both hope to teach each other and learn from each other. On the other hand, the teacher is still the one in a position of authority. Friendliness between students and teachers is perfectly acceptable, because it helps to create a pleasant environment where learning is a much easier task. However, that does not mean that students and teachers are friends. There doesn't need to be a power struggle between the two, but the teacher needs to be seen as an authority figure or their students will not respect them and both teaching and learning will become much more difficult tasks. Students and teachers have to work together to carefully balance their relationship to maximize the potential for teaching and learning. 

Goals of Teaching

What should be the main goal of a teacher, as a teacher? What is the most important thing a teacher can teach? Segel maintains that the most important thing is a "very special mode of belief-inculcation"(47). By inculcation, he does not mean torture, indoctrination, manipulation, brainwashing, etc. Instead he means that teachers should offer students reasons for their beliefs and try to justify them. They should also try to promote reason-assessment and critical thinking abilities in their students. I think this second part is extremely important, especially in light of the fact that many teachers skip over it. It is often part of the curriculum to teach critical thinking skills in relation to math or writing, or some other discipline in particular. Unfortunately, critical thinking skills are often not emphasized in other areas of every day life. I have rarely heard a teacher encourage his or her students to rethink what they've been taught before, to ask where someone got their sources from, to question authority, to challenge what their textbooks say. A good teacher should encourage their students to practice critical thinking in every area of their lives, both in and outside of school. I think that is probably the most important thing a teacher can teach.

What is the most important value in literature?

Is there any one thing that should be valued the most in literature? I know we talked about cognitive value in class, but is that the most important thing? Literature should help to cultivate the mind, it should help you to think creatively and critically, and see things from many different perspectives. It should convey truth and meaning, and you should learn something important from it. All of these things are very important, of course, but I can't help but think that there is something even more important than that. I believe the single most important value to take away from literature is catharsis. Catharsis can be a soul-cleansing experience, and provides much relief from repressed emotions. Catharsis can actually improve your health and mind, and it eases whatever burden you may carry. After catharsis, your mind and heart open up and are even more receptive to learning whatever more the literature has to teach you. All good things come after catharsis, what could be more important? 

Other Values of Literature

What other values are embedded in literature, besides cognitive? When I hear "cognitive" I think about thinking, the mind, that sort of thing. Of course, literature should be greatly valued because of its ability to make us thing about things in new and interesting ways, but is there nothing more than that? Personally, I usually place catharsis as an important value to be garnered from the arts. Emotionality in general should, in my opinion, be a huge part of the importance of literature. Literature should completely capture the mind, imagination, heart and soul. It should bring you fully into what you are reading, and radiate the truth. I think these kinds of things should be valued at least as much as the cognitive value. What do you value most about literature? 

Critical Monism & Pluralism

Both Critical Monism and Critical Pluralism are mainly good approaches to literary criticism, but the are both ultimately flawed criticisms. However, when used together, and with the added distinction between correctness and acceptability, I think that's the best way to criticize a work. We recognize only one, true, correct interpretation of a work, presumably the authors', but don't discount other acceptable interpretations. There is a limit on what can be considered an acceptable interpretation as well, as they "must be consistent with some facts about the work. For example, it would not be acceptable...to ask readers to suppose that the words of a work were different from those actually constituting the text of a work." (274) This helps to keep critical pluralism from becoming radically inclusive, and helps to further balance the relationship between critical pluralism and monism. Overall, I think Stecker combining the two types of criticism turned out to be the best approach to literary criticism as a whole

Critical Pluralism

Critical Pluralism is "the view that there are many acceptable interpretations of many artworks that cannot be conjoined into a single correct interpretation." (273) I think that's mostly true. Many interpretations of a work, although not necessarily correct, are acceptable. On the other hand, many people may agree on certain aspects of particular interpretations, but everyone could not possibly conjoin all of their different views into one single interpretation. Even if that was possible, who would say that their consensus would actually end up being correct? As important as the audience is to a literary work, they are ultimately not the ones who decide what is or is not correct in a work. The author's interpretation is the only one that is completely correct. Even if you are not able to draw one comprehensive, correct, single interpretation from a work, such an interpretation does exist. Everyone may not be able to agree with each other about their own particular interpretations, but they must all agree upon and accept the author's interpretation as correct and true.

Critical Monism

Critical Monism is "the view that there is a single, comprehensive, true (correct) interpretation for each work of art. (A true, comprehensive, interpretation of  work is one that is true, conjoins all true interpretations of the work, and one that comprehends the whole work.)" (273-274) I think that overall this is a very good way to approach literature. I do believe that there is only one correct way to interpret a work, and that is the author's interpretation. That interpretation may have many elements to it that the audience can see and agree with, but ultimately it doesn't matter if the audience agrees or not. In literature, it all comes back to the author and what meanings he or she ascribed to the literary work. Critical monism looks at a work as a whole and realizes it in its entirety, and yet I still feel as though it might be missing something. Although the author's interpretation of a work is technically the only one that is really "true", there are usually many other insightful interpretations out there. When one comes across an interpretation that is insightful, uplifting, inspiring, and helps you gain from the text, why should that interpretation be discounted? I think that Stecker was right in adding in the distinction that some interpretations can still be acceptable, even if they are not fully correct. There is a lot to gain from multiple interpretations of a text, and Critical Monism should allow that.

Art Interpretation

In "Art Interpretation" Robert Stecker tries to combine critical pluralism with critical monism, and I more or less agree with him. He describes critical pluralism as the view that a lot of acceptable interpretations that cannot be joined into a single one, and critical monism as the view that there is only one true interpretation. He also states that these two seemingly very different things can be combined if one can make the distinction between correctness and acceptability. I like that distinction. I think that only the author can truly correctly interpret the work in question, but that shouldn't mean the end for all outside interpretations. I agree with Stecker that interpretations are not objectively right or wrong, true or false. Different interpretations help the reader to see the work differently, and that is a good thing. Various interpretations can still, of course, be acceptable or unacceptable. Any acceptable interpretation has to be accept some facts in the work. One cannot simply make things up out of thin air and call that an acceptable interpretation. As he puts it, "it would not be acceptable, in the case of literary works, to ask readers to suppose that the words of a work were different from those actually constituting the text of a work." And, "On the other hand, it might be acceptable to attach unusual meanings to certain words in a text..." Overall, I thought Stecker did a fairly good job defending his view.

A Well-Governed Shark

One thing that I actually found very interesting about this article was the idea of "sharkishness" and evil. I've always thought of sharks as very similar to serial killers but I've never thought that people in general were all like sharks, especially not by nature. I'm always somewhat surprised when someone suggests that human nature is intrinsically evil, and that goodness can only result from conscious activity, which is exactly what Melville suggests. I must say though that I do find the whole idea of the well-governed shark fairly entertaining and worth noting. I do somewhat like the idea that in order to be a good person you can still be a shark by nature, as long as you are properly governing your inner shark. And I do think that most people have an inner shark of one kind or another, I just don't think that that shark is necessarily intrinsic. I suppose I see sharkishness as more of a developmental process than anything else. I also find it interesting how the assumption here seems to be that everyone can and should govern their sharkishness when there may be many cases of individuals who do not possess such a capability, such as some mentally handicapped people for instance. Another thing I find interesting is how Schopenhauer says that animals are not cruel to each other the way humans are, which Melville seems to agree with. The really funny thing about that is that the model being used here for what evil is in humanity, is a shark. 

Sociability and Intelligence

'Schopenhauer says: For the most part we have only a choice between solitude and vulgarity. The most social men are the least intellectual. "He is very unsocial," is almost equivalent to saying, "He is a man of great qualities".' For some reason this quote really stood out to me. I know this idea has been echoed by other famous proclaimed "geniuses". Many intellectuals often have come off as rather unsocial, but I wonder if that would be the exception or the rule. Schopenhauer seems to suggest that the rule would be that social men are generally unintelligent, and unsocial men are generally intellectual. However, I fail to see the correlation between those two things. I don't really understand how one comes to the conclusion that how social or unsocial someone is can usually determine their intelligence levels. If someone is really social he or she may influenced by many ideas, but that could easily be a good or bad thing. He or she may not be encouraged to think on their own, or they may use others ideas to help build off of their own and make new discoveries. There is no reason to automatically assume that just because someone is social that they are not intellectual. Likewise, a more unsocial person may be able to think more clearly and eloquently without worrying about popular opinions, or they may get stuck in the same way of thinking with no one to bounce their ideas off of. They too could be just as likely to be intelligent as unintelligent. I just don't think that one's social activities or lack thereof determine in any way someones intelligence. 

Moby-Dick: Madness

There is something about the idea of madness in Moby-Dick that I find strangely alluring. I feel that in modern day America one would be hard-pressed to find someone who would think that any kind of "madness" or "insanity" could in any way be considered a good thing, which is why it is so refreshing to look at the idea of madness in a different light. It isn't dismissed so lightly, without even looking at the different forms madness can take. People always assume that if someone is "insane" they aren't capable of  rational thought, and therefore cannot even recognize their "insanity". However, in Moby-Dick characters that are mad or insane, either labeled as such or self-identified, are able to recognize and even accept their madness. Ishmael seems to see a kind of madness within himself that he tries to combat by going to the sea. Pip's madness is seemingly different from Ishmael's, and instead of fighting it he accepts it. His madness "elevates" him and grants him indifference and "God-like freedom". I think Ahab's madness is the most interesting by far. He not only willing accepts and embraces it, he appears to believe there is nothing wrong with it and that other people should be mad as well. When Ahab talks to Perth in chapter 113, he tells Perth that he should be mad, and is confused as to how he gets by without being mad. People always seem to pity people who are seen as "insane", so I thought it was pretty funny the way Ahab almost seems to pity those who are not insane. Ahab must be somewhat sane in order to recognize his insanity, but then how can he be truly insane? We need to take a closer look at what we consider to be insanity, and I think Moby-Dick helps us to do just that. 

Metaphors Part 2

How or why might a metaphor be valued over a simile? What makes them so different? I understand that a simile is a comparison using "like" or "as", approximating something to something else, and that a metaphor is more of an equation to something else, but what, other than that, would set them apart? Why would we study an entire chapter on metaphors, but not on similes? They are both types of literary comparisons. What can a metaphor do that a simile cannot? I believe that metaphors can help the reader to see something old as new, and to see things in a new light. But I don't see why similes couldn't do the exact same thing. They, too, may be able to bring old information into a new light, and change your perspective on things. They too are extraordinary tools used to look at the world through a different lens than the one you’ve been using. So why are metaphors viewed as more important than similes? It seems to me that, due to their very similar nature, they would be equally important in literature. 

Metaphors Part 1

There are many benefits and uses of metaphors, that much is obvious, but are there any true consequences or downfalls of using metaphors? I think that a lot of the 'problems' people identify with metaphors aren't really problems at all. For instance, someone might suggest that not all metaphors translate very well. What we mean in English by saying “opening a can of worms” may not mean the same thing in Chinese, for example, but that little misunderstanding can be explained easily enough so that I don’t think that’s an actual problem. The ambiguity of metaphors, someone might say, could also be a problem. Take “Richard is a lion”, for example. I don’t think any literary work would simply say that sentence as it. The context of the literary work would explain that Richard is brave, like a lion, but is not a lion himself. Context usually helps to clear up ambiguity in literature, so I don’t think that’s a problem either. Literal vs. figurative meaning in literature may be a problem for some at first, but a conversation over the metaphor in question would solve that problem immediately. And what about metaphors having a specific hidden meaning? Well, that just means that you have to think about the metaphor a little harder and a little longer. As far as I am concerned, there really are no consequences to metaphors, only benefits. They help the reader to see something old as new, to see things in a new light. Something that you may have always known was true in the back of your mind may suddenly make itself more clear with the help of metaphors. They are extraordinary tools used to look at the world through a different lens than the one you’ve been using. They may even be essential to literature. 

Half-beliefs

“To half believe something is to be not quite sure that it is true, but also not sure that it is not true.” (178) What are some examples of this? How can one truly believe and not believe in something? Would that go against the Law of Non-Contradiction? No, maybe not that. I usually think of that Law as either something is or is not, and cannot be and not be at the same time. But to believe and not to believe still seems very contradictory. I've been having a very difficult time trying to come up with some kind of example that would work for such a contradictory claim. One thing that I thought of was the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Corny example, I know. I read the book and watched a movie about it. I know that it is purely fiction, and it would be completely nonsensical to believe in it. I know that it is not real. And yet, when I learned that Sleepy Hollow was based on a real town in New York, I thought to myself that I would never in a million years go there. Which is really ridiculous. I have no reason to avoid that town, but if I know that if I was ever near it, I would avoid it like the plague. So, in that sense, I suppose I can somewhat understand what half-beliefs are. However, to maintain any half-beliefs at all seems to be complete nonsense. It doesn't seem to me that we can hold any rational half-beliefs. If we can or if we do, I can't think of any. Can anyone else think of an example? 

Quasi-emotions?

What are ‘quasi-emotions’? Are they lesser forms of ‘natural’ emotions, or different from emotions all together? What would such a thing look like? How do they manifest themselves? How does one experience them? The entire idea of 'quasi-emotions' sounds quite confusing and unnecessary to me. I think emotions are what emotions are, and that you can't have a different 'type' of emotion. If that is what 'quasi-emotions' are, different types of regular emotions, then I simply cannot believe that they exist. A person is either feeling something or they are not. There is no in-between there. However, I will concede that emotions can be measured as if on a scale. There can be and if fact there are various degrees of emotion that can be felt differently by various individuals. For instance, if you take a look at the general emotion of 'anger', you will clearly find varying degrees of it. Being annoyed, irritated, frustrated, mad, angry, irate, furious, etc. So, if the term 'quasi-emotions' means simply a lesser degree of an emotion, such as being annoyed rather then furious, then that seems to make perfect sense. And yet, if you look up the word 'quasi', you are very likely to find a definition like 'partly', 'almost' or 'seemingly'. But can you 'almost' have an emotion? Or 'seemingly' have one? How can you 'partly' feel sad, or angry, or happy, or scared? That doesn't make sense at all. If the author does in fact mean a less intense form of an emotion by the term 'quasi-emotion', then why not say simply that? Because certainly the term 'quasi' by itself means no such thing. 

Fiction/Emotion/Something Else

Some people believe that the reason why we can enjoy fiction is because of our disbelief in it, that we could not otherwise enjoy fictional works like tragedies. But is our disbelief in fiction the reason why we can enjoy it, or does it instead keep us from enjoying it? I think that disbelief in fiction could only inhibit our enjoyment. In order to truly enjoy any work of fiction, one must be able to fully immerse themselves in it, they need to lose themselves in it. If, throughout the fiction, a person is able to completely distance themselves from the work, and can only look at the work critically, clearly that person is missing the entire point of fiction. Fiction is suppose to make us feel, it's suppose to penetrate us straight to our very souls. It is suppose to connect with us on every level. The proper time to be critical of a fictional work is after it is done. No one is suppose to be able to think critically while first observing a fictional work because the work is suppose to whisk you away to another time and place, it should capture your mind and heart. If it does not do this for a particular audience, then either something is wrong with the audience or the fictional work. After you've seen a work for a few times, then of course you should be able to look at it through more critical eyes. Fiction is meant to awaken and arouse the deepest, most profound emotions in us, and so disbelief or removal from fiction is somewhat counterintuitive. 

Is Fiction Definable?

Is it possible for fiction to have a definition that is not only timeless, universal, and all encompassing, but also be specific and exact? Or could a specific and exact definition only be possible in the context of a work’s times? For me, a definition must be true forever and everywhere, but this tends to make definitions quite difficult. Things are always changing, things are always in motion, and it may be difficult to create a consistent definition. So does this mean that a more flexible definition is required, or a more strict one? I think a flexible definition could be timeless and universal, but only by being extremely vague. On the other hand, you could have a definition that is specific and exact, but you would probably only be able to use that definition at a certain time in a certain place. What kind of definition would be better? Or is neither way better than the other? How should one even start going about trying to define a term like "fiction", which can cover such a wide range of items? 

Morris Weitz and Definitions

Can Morris Weitz’s idea about defining art truly be applied to music, literature, and other popular art-related domains? Does this make for a sufficient definition? For anyone who doesn't know, Weitz came up with the idea of having a kind of umbrella term for "art", making the actual definition of "art" impossible, but being able to define the sub-categories of "art" which all bear a kind of "family resemblance" to each other. I personally liked this idea in terms of art, but I was wondering how many other things this kind of concept could be applied to. I think it would be very helpful in relation to trying to find a good definition for "fiction". It would be much easier to define fiction in the specific, Sci-Fi movies for example, rather than in the general. After we identified and defined the various sub-categories for "fiction", we could then go on to determine whether or not "fiction" itself is definable. If it is, it can be defined in relation to the sub-categories. And, if it is not definable, at least we can define specific types of fictional works. 

Defining Literature Part 3

What is the difference between epics, novels, novellas, stories, narratives, texts, discourses, poetry, lyrics, speeches, manuscripts, reports, pamphlets, brochures, textbooks, catalogs, letters, etc? More importantly, what is the common thread that holds them all together? I always assumed that they all fell under the general category of “literature”, because they all appear to be written literary works, and what else does something need to be to be properly called “literature”? I truly do believe that a necessary condition for literature is to be written, but I now question whether or not being written is sufficient for the definition. After all, I don’t want to be radically inclusive. So what kind of criteria can we make for "literature"? What are the distinguishing factors between other various written works? What are the sufficient conditions for putting a work in the category of  "literature"? The authors' intention is one thing that should be considered. If an author did not mean for a work to be "literature", then perhaps it should not be called so. On the other hand, if an author did mean for a work to be "literature", does that automatically make it so? I think not. At least, it is not sufficient enough. But maybe intention could be a necessary condition for "literature". When one looks at fictional works vs. non-fictional ones, it can be very difficult to find the common thread that allow them to both be called "literature". I would think that this would make the criteria for "literature" incredibly small. I think we can at least say "being written" is one of the criteria, and "authors' intention" might be another, but after that I must say that I am at a loss. The factors vary so much from one written piece to another that I simply cannot come up with an adequate definition of "literature". But, I would be very anxious to know if anyone else can... 

Defining Literature Part 2

What type of “definition” are we talking about here? Do we mean a semantic, or lexical definition, for example? Must this definition be completely “closed”, or can it remain somewhat “open”? When I think of  the term "definition", I imagine a closed lexical definition, something that is both universal and everlasting (that is, that it is true everywhere across time). However, I recognize that if we try to define the term "literature" with that kind of definition, we will inevitably fail. As with most of the arts, it appears that a more open definition is required. But then we fall into another problem, the problem of radical inclusivity. How open can we make the definition while still retaining some proper criteria? And there is another problem with defining literature; can literature be measured on a scale, or must it be binary? That is, must a work either be or not be literature? Although a binary definition does seem to be more closed, surely not every written work can be a work of literature. And if we were using a binary type definition, should we then only use a scale to measure how well a work succeeds at being literature? We need to first decide on how we are going to define "literature" before actually trying to decide upon the criteria it will need to satisfy. 

Defining Literature Part 1

Can we define “literature” without first defining “art”? If “literature” falls under the umbrella term “art”, can “literature” also have its own sub-umbrella of various literary works? If “art” actually does fall under the umbrella term “aesthetic”, as some might suggest, must all of these works underneath "art"  be considered “aesthetic” as well, or only some of them? Does "art" in and of itself have to be "aesthetic"? Is that actually a necessary condition, or merely a desirable one which makes a work more successful? By "aesthetic" I here mean to enrich or enhance an experience, but that definition is clearly not agreed upon. If it was, it should not be that difficult to include non-fiction works as well as the fiction ones. And yet, fictional works seem to be much more widely agreed upon as "literature" while many non-fiction ones are more controversial. Subjective opinions and ideas tend to make a big mess out of aesthetics, because what might enhance or enrich one persons' experience may have the opposite effect on another. Much of the time, many works of fiction are agreed upon by different people. However, while one person might thoroughly enjoy the autobiography of Mark Twain and find it very aesthetically pleasing, another might find it simply boring and a waste of time. This makes using the term "aesthetic" very difficult while trying to create a concrete definition for "literature". What is the true correlation between the terms "literature", "art", and "aesthetic"? 

Qualifications

Are certain audiences more qualified to judge certain works than others? Are other audiences not qualified to judge other works? Who decides who is qualified, and who is not? What does one need to do in order to become qualified? I think everyone has the right to judge a literary work, but I also think that some people may have more refined opinions than others. If two people looked at a painting by Pablo Picasso, and one of them had never seen one of his paintings before, and the other had studied Picasso's works for years, you would be more likely to listen to the second person's opinion. I would imagine it would be the same for literature. Some people would have more knowledge about certain works than most other people, and we would trust the opinions of the more knowledgeable people to guide our own opinions of the works. But how knowledgeable does someone need to be to actually be considered an "expert"? How much more training and research do they need to surpass everyone else? How does someone actually become qualified enough so that their opinion seems to matter more than the average Joe walking down the street? Any ideas? 

Literature and Criteria

Can one develop the proper criteria to properly judge any literary work from any time period? Or does one need to develop different criteria for different works from different periods? In other words, can a work only be judged by the context of its time? I think that in order to define "literature" we must include some type of criteria. We need criteria to determine what is or is not literature, and then criteria to determine how good or bad the literature is. However, I personally cannot think of any way to create a criteria that would be able to properly judge literary works throughout the ages and the world. That would seem to suggest that you would have to continually create and change all literary criteria. And yet, that still doesn't seem to be the most logical approach to this problem. So, how do we develop the right criteria for literature? Any suggestions? 

The Philosophy Toolkit

Under the category of "Logical Terms" reads this definition, "Truth: the correspondence of a statement with the way the world is. Philosophers disagree with this definition (see above), but it is a good place to start." (7) I didn't understand why there would be any disagreement at all, this claim seemed to be indisputable. On further inspection of this claim, I wondered if the disagreement arose from the idea that this is a mostly metaphysical claim, and may or may not apply to epistemology or axiology. When you're talking about "the way the world is", you are making a primarily metaphysical claim. It may be true that the correspondence of a statement with reality is metaphysical truth, but perhaps there needs to be a greater criteria for the definition of "truth" in order to also incorporate epistemological and axiological truth. As far as what this definition might be, I'm afraid I don't have a clue. Does anyone else have any ideas?

About Myself

Hello, my name is Stacy Alice Fisher and I was born on November 19, 1991 and I'm 20 years old. I am a sophomore here at MCLA and I am currently undeclared, but I'm leaning towards Anthropology/ Sociology for a major and I'm going to minor in Philosophy. I have been interested in Philosophy for as long as I can remember, and I believe it is the fundamentally most important thing a person should study. I am extremely opinionated and have a hard time keeping said opinions to myself. One of the things I have been trying to learn from Philosophy is that everyone has a valid opinion that deserves to be heard, this is a much more difficult lesson to learn than I originally thought. I think there is so much a person can take away from Philosophy if they only open their minds and give it a chance. This is only my second year seriously studying Philosophy, and I have already noticed a big difference in myself and how I perceive the world. When I believe in something, I truly do believe in it with every fiber of my being. This makes it exceedingly difficult for anyone who wishes to change my mind on a particular matter. However, this also means that I am exceedingly impressed with anyone who actually can. I thoroughly enjoy arguing with people, because that is, interestingly enough, how I learn best. I want to see every point on every matter from every direction there is, and listening to other people argue their point, listening to their opponents, and listening to the devil's advocates all help me to further understand a discussion. I simply love a good debate. Well, that's all for now I suppose. Have a great day everybody! :)