THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON 2014 - Philosophy

1. THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON - Philosophy
Euthyphro - Socratic Irony
Cartesian Doubt and Metaphysical Certainty
11 July 2014
There is irony throughout this piece by Plato (Euthyphro) exercised by Socrates,
who cunningly has place himself physically at the porch of King Archon with the
expectation of being question by Euthyphro. Socrates frequently practiced philosophy in
public amongst the people of Athens particularly those whom could be influence or
convince of his theories or logic. Euthyphro’s inquisitiveness allowed Socrates to
meticulously engage in the conversation, in which Socrates made it seem was being
initiated by Euthyphro.
Socrates uses what can be perceived as irony methodology by voluntarily mentioning
of Meletus. Going further by cleverly providing a physical description implanted another
seed when Euthyphro mention he didn’t know him, Socrates very causally led Euthyphro
into the conversation. By then than even omitting himself of being a “wiser man” in
comparison to the known corruptors of the youth when speaking with Euthyphro in
regards to Meletus sentiments, the irony is very apparent throughout the documented

2. Plato conversation. With intent Socrates is being very complimentary of Meletus bating
Euthyphro as if he was being quizzed, the mention Euthyphro compiled even further by
expressing his personal sentiments of his fear regarding the probable leadership in the
future of Meletus.
And a very crafty Socrates initiates more conversation by simply baiting Euthyphro
by listening, as Euthyphro obliges speaking about the unwavering unison when speaking
of the judges and courts. Without a verbal admission or request by Socrates to do so at all
Euthyphro has made it apparent he will support Socrates, and at the risk of continuing to
be viewed as an eccentric by the courts.
The verbal irony I thought was strategically deployed here by Socrates, who
brilliantly then uses Euthyphro’s own words suggesting that jealousy exist base on the
earlier statement by Euthyphro “but they are jealous of us all; and we must be brave and
go at them”. Socrates even suggested they’re laughing might be directed at Euthyphro
but cleverly encouraging optimism when repeating Euthyphro’s earlier statement about
jealousy, Euthyphro became almost defensive. But the genius of the entire discussion is
in it’s ending when Socrates proposes the question to Euthyphro “ are you the purser of
the defendant?” embedding a seed into Euthyphro which will be implanted throughout
Athens judging by Euthyphro’s willingness to engage as well offer sentiments without
justification or reason.
It’s to the benefit of the philosopher who engages in philosophical themes or concepts
using irony it unfortunately today is utilized more so by politicians. It provides a front
and rear entry of being accountability, there’s not a direct target, a superficial subject and

3. methodology wise a topic can be easily exploited or even manipulated by the best
speakers as Socrates confirms in this assignment with Euthyphro, masterfully I might ad.
I personally feel that being philosopher Rene Descartes didn’t actually write anything
until almost 20 years after the infamous night of his 3 dreams, it may have impeded his
productivity. Subjecting his theories to ridicule maybe because particularly nothing
written by Descartes a young scientist or philosopher until writing the “Discourse of the
Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for the Truth in Science” the rules
being quite controversial when speaking in regards to empiricism and all human
knowledge comes from 5 senses. Descartes theory then was revolutionary and
unorthodox base on the premise giving credible or validity to the “point of view of
someone who know but is trying by the use of his intelligence to discover something”.
Oppose to that of an individual of certified expertise, which at this time was highly
debated and contested by philosophers. Descartes first rule brought analytical thinking
and skepticism to philosophy by asserting the methodology and theory “accept nothing
that is not certain”.

4. Reference:
Plato.
Euthyphro
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyphro.html
Descartes,
R.
Discourse
of
the
Method.
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/descartes1637.pdf

5. THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON - Philosophy
Rene Descartes - Meditation I
11 July 2014
Rene Descartes methodology is base on the metaphysical which basically questions
the nature of the mind, but in his writings Meditation I it’s leaves one uncertain being
Descartes logic isn’t at this particularly time a scientific fact and as mention unorthodox.
Personally I myself have read Meditation I over and over as well listen to the audio it
can be perceived to be more biographical than rational thinking in my opinion, almost
seemingly at times a confession. The one analogy he used in Meditation II when he
mention (at this time) the questionable methodology consciously comparing, associating
it with educated academia mentioning it with Archimedes, Descartes philosophical
purpose in this writing seems to be more self initiated.

6. His questioning and logic can be assumed as powerful but when not in a state of
consciousness – how can this be determined? I find myself personally even reassessing
the abilities that many of are taught in society from adolescence to relegate our thinking.
And with these thinks being critiqued I would have to say Descartes does succeed in his
unorthodox rational where the curiosity will intuitively seek more definitive reasoning.
With myself included I am still currently trying to find and for these reasons Rene
Descartes is surely a mystery extensive reading and research would ever thoroughly or
properly analyze.

7. Reference:
Stanford Encyclopedia on Philosophy. (2008) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/

8. THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON – Philosophy
The Morality in Reality
5 August 2014
The
philosopher
and
methodology
of
John
Stuart
Mill’s
and
Immanuel
Kant
I
personally
found
to
be
very
intriguing.
And
interestingly
immediately
I
decided
to
address
Duty
vs.
Consequences
when
choosing
between
the
elective
topic
options.
I
believe
it’s
necessary
to
take
a
brief
overview
on
what
may
have
contributed
to
the
reasoning
or
irrational
stances
some
may
feel
that
both
philosophers
have
been
credited
to
be
synonymous
to
have.
John
Stuart
Mill’s
methodology
in
his
adolescence
can
be
of
course
attributed
to
his
youth
being
the
son
of
the
James
Mill

9. one
who
adapted
radical
philosophical
methodology
in
his
thinking.
And
utilitarianism
was
adapted
by
a
close
friend
of
James
Mill
a
philosopher
name
Jeremy
Bentham,
the
doctrine
being
that
“actions
are
right
if
they
are
useful
or
to
the
benefit
of
a
majority
of
people”.
John
Stuart
Mill’s
stance
after
various
emotional
crisis
which
occurred
in
his
twenties
changing
to
eclectic
synthesizer…his
viewpoint
became
more
liberal.
Mill’s
(John
Stuart)
was
also
influence
in
my
personal
opinion
because
of
his
relationship
with
Mrs.
Harriet
Taylor,
which
made
him
sensitive
to
issues
like
discrimination
against
women.
On
the
other
hand
Immanuel
Kant’s
was
initially
a
privatdozent
being
paid
not
by
the
university
which
hired
him,
generating
his
salary
by
the
amount
of
engagements
he
lectured
and
of
course
the
more
money
he
made.
He
was
recognized
as
an
ethical
theorist
and
known
for
his
writings
in
physics,
metaphysics
and
astronomy.
Kant’s
greatest
works
came
after
a
period
over
a
decade
long
where
he
had
published
nothing
eventually
revolutionizing
philosophy
with
a
series
of
works.
In
comparison
to
John
Stuart
Mill’s
background
Immanuel
Kant’s
was
one
where
he
seem
more
connected
quite
possibly
to
what
he
rationalize
or
reasoned
with
being
there
was
a
struggle
during
his
journey.
Although
mental
disorder
is
definitely
something
I
take
very
serious
I
believe
Mill’s
life
was
more
of
privilege
and
the
pressures
of
living
up
to
expectation
may
have
had
an
adverse
effect
on
much
of
what
he
attempted
to
reason
with
personally,
which
may
have
contributed
to
his
strong
admiration
of
Harriet
Taylor…possibly
being
more
of
a
dependency,
just
my
opinion.
And
with
some
of
the
analogies
I
have
personally
concluded
in
my
introduction
I
can
comfortably
take
more
of
a
personal
philosophical
motivated
approach
towards
speaking
about
Duty
vs.
Consequences.

10. Doctrine
wise
John
Stuart
Mill’s
past
is
in
my
opinion
is
very
difficult
to
disconnect
in
what
some
might
perceive
as
his
flip-­‐flopping
in
philosophies
as
well
as
questionable.
For
weeks
in
class
I
would
find
it
extremely
difficult
to
correlate
what
philosophers
had
contributed
in
regards
to
methodology
or
logic?
In
my
opinion
it
didn’t
always
have
a
descriptive
process
or
structured
process
for
centuries.
The
definition
provided
for
the
word
duty
in
Merriam-­‐Webster’s
dictionary,
“something
that
is
done
as
part
of
a
job”
and
goes
on
further
by
saying…”something
that
you
must
do
because
it
is
morally
right
or
because
the
law
requires
it”.
The
contrast
between
the
mention
words
definition
to
that
of
the
word
consequences,
must
be
thoroughly
evaluated
in
order
to
speak
of
or
address
anything
on
a
level
of
logic
or
philosophical.
The
word
consequences
-­‐
is
defined
in
Merriam-­‐Webster’s
dictionary
as
“something
that
happens
as
a
result
of
a
particular
action
or
a
set
of
conditions”.
The
interpretation
could
be
perceived
as
duty
being
more
objective
and
consequences
to
be
more
subjective
in
the
opinion
of
most
although
both
are
basically
elective
when
thoroughly
analyzed
in
my
personal
opinion.
And
Kant’s
theories
regarding
rational
agents
and
what
he
spoke
of
in
categorical
imperative
seem
to
have
more
of
a
rational
approach
in
direct
correlation
to
the
groundwork
he
established
in
his
belief
that
“persons
are
ends-­‐in-­‐themselves”.
Not
to
discredit
John
Stuart
Mill
who’s
contributions
became
more
significant
in
years
to
come
but
theory
wise
and
rationally
Immanuel
Kant
presented
a
variety
of
factors
to
support
his
stance.
But
in
the
same
breathe
many
would
have
found
opposition
to
Kant
due
to
his
willingness
to
voice
things
about
prejudices
and
discrimination
which
may
have

11. changed
society
forever,
due
to
the
indifferences
we
continue
to
have
as
a
collective
nation
today.
Is there Morality in Reality? Here’s an example I like to use regarding duty vs.
consequence:
First
scenario
-­‐
imagine
a
university
being
in
the
process
of
searching
for
a
professor
to
replace
a
newly
retired
male
professor
of
tenure.
The
university
reputation
through
the
years
has
been
considered
to
be
very
sexist
and
with
majority
of
tenured
personnel
all
being
majority
male
professors.
A
very
highly
qualified
female
professor
who
has
recently
relocated
from
the
east
coast
to
the
west
coast,
and
with
prior
experience
heading
the
same
department
at
the
prior
university
where
she
was
tenured
excels
during
her
interview.
But
she’s
battling
against
a
professor
with
less
experience
and
tenured
years
but
he’s
a
personal
friend
of
the
entire
selection
panel
making
the
final
determination
about
the
decision
who’ll
be
hired
for
the
position?
Incentive
wise
would
it
be
safe
to
assume
Mill
would
probably
the
females
because
of
her
gender?
I
believe
he
would
but
the
real
question
would
then
be…would
the
hire
be
considered
ethical?
If
it
was
decided
through
gender,
friendship
and
not
because
qualifications
a
hire
was
made?
But
is
it
safe
to
assume
that
because
of
ones
impeccable
resume
and
education
n
that
they’ll
be
adequately
equip
to
cohesively
facilitate
every
responsibility
that
had
been
handled
by
the
retired
professor?
Take
into
consideration
the
retired
professor
was
a
favorite
at
the
university
and
the
professor
currently
tenured
at
the
university
with
less
qualifications
worked
very
closely
within
the
department
with
him…duty
vs
consequences?

12. Is there Morality of Reality? The Second scenario – image being in the position years
ago of many in the era of the war in Vietnam and coming from a family where 5
generations including your father and grandfather served their country. Your family
tradition wasn’t to wait for a draft it was to voluntarily enter service which you didn’t,
then your drafted…still with reservations. Knowing you family will be proud of “if” you
proudly serve your country, which you’d now like to do to honor your family tradition
after having regrets not volunteering. But your best friend already refused enlistment
because of a pact you made with him, what do you do…duty vs consequences?
Being
a
huge
cinema
fan
I
enjoyed
a
movie
starring
Will
Smith
called
Enemy
of
the
States
[Scott,
T.
1998]
the
movie
was
primarily
based
on
deception
and
perception.
Ethically
not
all
we
perceive
to
be
morally
right
is
and
the
dilemma
that
Smith
had
in
this
thriller
was
making
a
decision
based
on
duty
vs
consequences
and
the
danger
that
may
even
persist
on
both
sides
of
the
decision
that
would
effect
him
and
well
his
family.
And
quite
ironically
another
movie
that
was
also
directed
by
the
same
person
[Scott,
T.
2001]
(didn’t
realize
until
doing
the
research)
is
Spy
Games
starring
Brad
Pitt
and
Robert
Redford.
The
story
line
is
two
CIA
operatives
one
retiring
(Redford)
has
a
protégé
he
personally
trained
(Pitt)
who
was
captured
in
another
country
on
the
day
of
his
retirement.
Then
he’s
face
with
the
dilemma
and
making
the
decision
between
duty
vs
consequences…is
there
morality
in
reality
at
all?
And
ethically
would
it
be
considered
ethical
to
turn
your
back
on
an
individual
you’ve
personally
trained
and
also
developed
a
personal
relationship
with…most
important
would
he
leave
you
for
dead?

13. THE WHEEL SPEAKS ON – Philosophy
Sam Harris & Free Will
5 August 2014
The
one
lecture
that
intrigued
me
personally
more
than
any
was
Sam
Harris
and
this
important
issue
was
brought
to
our
attention
in
regards
to
morality,
and
sometimes
the
difficulty
to
choose
a
particular
side
especially
when
speaking
regarding
morality
or
determinism.
Do
we
act
of
our
free
will
or
even
have
free
will?
Are
we
responsible
for
our
own
actions
from
a
morality
standpoint?
All
interesting
questions
brought
up
in
the
Sam
Harris
lecture
a
few
weeks
ago.
In the book About Philosophy [Wolf, R. 2011] Kant believes “a rational agent is the
person who is capable of moving him self or her self to act by reason”…but the question
in this scenario in my opinion would be, what would be considered in Kant’s analysis
as…acting by reason? I respectfully allude to this because much of what was analyze and
challenge and at times was confusing to me, and particularly when researching
information on my topic duty vs consequences. Honestly the philosopher who although
was a bit questionable himself that at least seem to consciously be on the right track when
it came down to a structure practice being deployed by all philosophers was Thomas

14. Kuhn the topic of paradigm and Scientific Revolution [Wolf, R. 2011]. At least
seemingly at the time attempted to introduce a structured process towards addressing a
particular study in my opinion. Especially when also speaking reading about the
paradigm shifts that occur during the process based on findings of the past or future
being introduced. Finally verbiage was introduced into its terminology that others would
recognize.
On a personal I find myself being more susceptible to the Millian credo of John Stuart
Mill, being his objective more liberal view in regards to diversity and discrimination of
particularly women, at that time. It’s almost impossible to take a firm assertive stance on
what many of especially the philosophers of the past have structure much of there
findings theory and methodology on (especially the mention two in this exercise) because
of their wavering stances that have been documented. The utilitarianism rule was to make
as many people happy as possible and for these reasons I think Mill would be more
subjective to acting in the best interest in the long run…being he’d been strongly
influence and inspired by a women. And the deal breaker for me personally is Kant saw
morality in the same manner as Puritans and Protestants…as an individual struggle. In the
opinion of many it’s more of an at large struggle of a collective society. I’ve enjoyed this
exercise and especially the entire 4 weeks and feel enlightened on a variety of different
issues that in the past I’d question for years and I intend to continue my pursuit for
addition information. But the question I’ll have to ask myself personally now would be is
my pursuit more because of duty vs consequences?
And
is
there
truly
morality
associated
with
the
reality
of
what
life
has
generally
become?

15. Reference:
Wolff, P. R. About Philosophy Eleventh Edition. 2011
Marconi , D. Scott, T. Enemy of the State. 1998 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/
Beckner, M. Scott, T. Spy Games. 2001 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266987/
Harris, S. Sam Harris on Free Will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g