Philosophy

It is uncertain if Socrates is an actual historical figure or a literary device (right word") developed by Plato, but the general consensus is that he was real. The main thing was that He never worte anything himself so we only know about him through Platos works. Although there is some tangential evidence he appeared in works by other folks?

People have asked me about who my favorite philosopher was, and that was a tough question for me for a while. For one, I was mainly interested in their ideas, and while I do have ideas that I find useful or more accurate, I dont have emotional preference for specifric ones. For two, I dont really know the philosophers well at all. Even if they were esteemed thinkers of their time, they may be frustratingly annoying. so it was difficult for me to answer in a non analytic way because thats how I approach this study. I wasn't really attached emotinoally to name any favorites.

This changed after my consecutive success culminating in my work at Root Insurance. I considered foundamentally why I was so fortunate, and I realized now that I embodied simialr ideals and values as Socrates. His back story is that he is went to the oracle of delphi, and she todl him he was the wisest man. But he didnt think so. He wasn't accomplished, didnt have that much money, nor other things. so it seemed impossible that this was true. However, we put it to the test and had discussions with everyone. Whereas other people would proclaim falsely, he would figure it out and thus he was wises because he didn't lie, he told the truth. He probably wasn't even the smartest person. He was the most honest.

I do not even remember a lot of the discussions he had, because he didn'treally purport any good strong ideas, no grand schools of though. He simply chatted with others and showed their naitivity. The only papers I remember are Crito, Apology, and Phaedo. These particuarly exemplify his commitment. I always thought Crito and Apology were the most interested. In Crito, he defends his actions and tells thet ruth, even if that means a death sentence. In Apology, he refuses not to accept death and bes himself. But in phaedo, I realize later that Socrates is so commited to the truth and hoensty, and he took the time to have a deep discussion with an interlocator on the same day he will be sentence to death in a very serious trial. Most people wouldn't hav ethe interest to do so knowing how serious the trial is. This is why he is the gadfly of athens.

I have a tatoo of the hemlock he drank to remind me to be humble like socrates. It is also a reminder to be hoenst. I plan to also attain a painting of the Death of Socrates to hang in my living. It is a good reminder for me. People will kill you for telling the truth. Also, I will gladly die to tell the truth.

Fact-check notes: Socrates is generally accepted as a historical person; the main uncertainty is how accurately later accounts represent him. He left no philosophical writings of his own, but Plato is not our only source: Xenophon and Aristophanes also wrote about him (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, §2.1). In Plato’s account, Chaerephon, not Socrates, consulted the Delphic oracle. Socrates’s wisdom lies in recognizing the limits of his knowledge, rather than establishing that he was objectively the most honest person. His honesty is a reasonable personal interpretation. The gadfly metaphor describes his role in awakening Athens through questioning (Apology, 20e–23b, 30e–31a). Apology presents his trial defense; Crito concerns his refusal to escape prison after conviction (Crito, 46b–54d). Phaedo depicts discussion with friends on the day of his execution, not his trial (Phaedo, 58a–59c, 117a–118a). The courthouse conversation may be a memory of Euthyphro, which occurs while his prosecution is pending (Euthyphro, 2a–3b). Socrates does express substantive ethical commitments, not merely expose others’ mistakes. His formal charges concerned impiety and corrupting the young; dying for truth is an interpretation of his story, not the literal charge.

Rene Descartes is a polymath and he is considered to be the father of modern philosphy. To give a condessed timeline, there was ancient greek philosphy and Aristitotle was the pinniacle, his word was more or less accepted. After the fall of greek civiliation, there was a period of no that much philosphyical thought like they had at athens. yes they had peopl document their ideas and studies like marcus arueicla meditations and machieavill the prince, but these are more like a set of empriial observations and values than they are rigorous philosophical thought about the nature of the world or wahtever. This chagned with rene descartes when ancient greek text were brought to medieval europe and people got reengaged with the subject

His major work is the medications of the first philosophy. This is where he tries to figure out from first principles his exact namture. He doesnt allow himself to take one assumption. even questioning his sensess all the way. Am I actually sensing the real work, is this just the devil tricking me" am I a brain in the vat. The candle wax argument, what is exactly candle wax, it looks like this, but when i melt it, its liquid, how can it be both. He goes all the way back and then he can only find one thing. I am a thinking being. that is apparent. that is obvious and there is no doubt. Everything else there is doubt, but there is no doubt I am a thining being. And because I think, therefor I am. The french verison is je pense donc je suis, and the latin is cogito ergo sum.

His argument would continue eventually involving the use of God to achieve that his reality is sane. This is a bit more contensious to be analyze, but the practice of questioning and doubting to the very core of who you are, is what he is best remembered for. This method of questioning things was lost and he brought it back, that is why hes the father of modern philosphy but the other people are not so much, they were not involved as deep in the questioning and recoving what we could.

Fact-check notes: René Descartes is often called the father of modern philosophy, but rigorous philosophy did not disappear between Aristotle and Descartes. Ancient skepticism and medieval Christian, Islamic, and Jewish philosophy developed substantial arguments about knowledge and reality; Greek texts were translated into Latin centuries before Descartes’s seventeenth-century work. Calling Aristotle the “pinnacle,” or earlier thinkers less rigorous, expresses a judgment rather than an established historical fact. (Medieval philosophy; ancient skepticism.) The correct title is Meditations on First Philosophy (1641). Descartes methodically suspends beliefs that admit doubt, using dreams and a hypothetical malicious deceiver; the brain in a vat is a modern analogy, not his example. (Meditations; brain-in-a-vat discussion.) The wax discussion concerns how the intellect recognizes the same substance despite changing sensory properties, not a contradiction between solid and liquid. In Meditation II, his initial certainty is “I am, I exist” whenever he thinks. The familiar French formulation appears in Discourse on the Method (1637), and the Latin cogito formulation appears in Principles of Philosophy (1644). (Works and dates; Discourse; Principles.) God subsequently helps ground the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions, rather than merely establishing sanity; whether that reasoning is circular remains debated. Descartes’s importance lies in his influential reconstruction of knowledge, not in being the first person to question deeply. (Descartes’s epistemology.)

he has made many contributions to philosophy. He greatly advanced empiricism beyond John Locke and made contributions to the philsophy of science such as the problem of causation and the problem of induction. Way before fast and slow thinking, he stated that our rational mind is not in control, it is our emotions. He has influence me most with is of is-ought

is-ought is the gap that we cannot derive factual statments from moral ones and vice versa. These are two completely separate statements humans make. For eamle, Is is descriptive statement about how things actually are. Ought are moral statments about what ought to be or should be or would like to be. It is also an is statment to say that someone believes this is what ought to be, or with some other additional premise to "link" the is and oughtnes. But they are not linked themselves. They are fundamentally two different realms of thinking.

This influenced me greatly and helps me unmingle my own is and ought statmenets. My own essays even address this dichomty as well, in Identity and Vales and Theory and Experience. He is a monumental figure in modern philosophy who has influence many ofhter phiosophers who eventually laid the path for science. And because he accurately described the limits of science and our relation of it through his work.

Fact-check notes: Hume was a major empiricist, although “advanced empiricism beyond Locke” is an evaluative description rather than an uncontested ranking. His discussions of causation and induction are central contributions: he questioned how experience could justify expectations about unobserved events, not whether science was simply worthless. Science already existed; his influence was on its philosophical foundations and limitations. See Enquiry, Section IV. The principal correction concerns is–ought: on the standard reading, an “ought” cannot be inferred from purely descriptive premises without a normative premise or bridge. This is not a blanket claim that factual and moral statements can never have implications for each other in either direction. Hume’s precise meaning remains debated. See Treatise 3.1.1 and Stanford’s discussion. “Ought” concerns what should be done or be the case, not merely what someone desires. Reporting someone’s moral belief is indeed descriptive; endorsing that belief is different. Hume’s claim about reason and passions concerns motivation: reason alone does not supply the ends that move us to act, although it informs our beliefs and means. It does not mean emotions control every mental activity. See Treatise 2.3.3. The comparison with Kahneman’s fast and slow thinking is only an analogy: automatic versus deliberate processing is not the same distinction as passion versus reason. Your account of Hume’s influence on your own thinking is a personal reflection, not something requiring historical correction.

philosophy of science handles Humes is. But what bout ought? Kirkegard took this seriously. What ought we do. What values. His conclusion is that we could just die and it dont matter. and that seems to be the case. He made this argument. He was annoying. It was sad to listen to him talk.

Neitzsche went at it from a different angle. He noted we get our ought from God, and God is dead. So now what do we do? We have an ubermench so figures out what value is and we fight for that value. Value is subjective and created and we figure it out. He answers kiregard without having to accept suicide. It doesnt matter as long we have something we strive toward. Of course there is no fact out there that says our life does matter, but it doesnt mean we cannot enjoy it and stive to rules that we create.

These ideas are further fleshed out by later philosphers albert Camus in the myth of sisphyus and Satre in his idea of genuine idnetity and authenticity.

Fact-check notes: The main correction concerns Kierkegaard: he did not conclude that we might as well die because nothing matters. His work addresses despair, ethical commitment, becoming a self, and Christian faith. Your reaction to his writing is personal, but that conclusion misrepresents his position (Kierkegaard). The question of whether life’s apparent meaninglessness warrants suicide is especially associated with Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus. Camus rejects suicide and advocates consciously living in revolt against the absurd, rather than resolving it through religious hope (Camus). Nietzsche’s “God is dead” concerns the erosion of Christianity’s cultural authority and the foundations of inherited European morality, not a literal death or a claim that all values necessarily come from religion. His emphasis on creating values and overcoming oneself is more demanding than “anything we strive for is equally good”; interpretations of his account of value remain disputed (Nietzsche). Presenting Nietzsche as an alternative to Kierkegaard can work as your comparison, but should not imply a documented direct reply: Nietzsche received a recommendation to read Kierkegaard only near the end of his productive life (Nietzsche’s life). Sartrean authenticity concerns acknowledging our situated freedom and responsibility, rather than discovering a fixed, pre-existing true identity (Sartre). Finally, Hume’s is–ought distinction does not neatly divide philosophy of science from these thinkers: questions about evidence, values, and reasons for action cross several philosophical fields.

Wittgenstein only wrote two books. Tractus, published when he was young just coming out of PhD. In tractus he claims to solve all philosophpy problems, they are just language problems. But he published a 2nd book posthumously, philosphical investigations, where he goes back on what he said.

the most important thing for me, is that he gave the idea (which book and when?) of language and meaning and language is a game and we have to figure ou the meaning. Language is just a tool to help us cooridnate. its nonsense to think it has anymore theory like what is the perfect circle, it doenst exist in the world, there must be a theory of forms or seomthing on what the cirlce is in the heavens and that is where our conception of a circle comes from. rahter, ludwig says the cirlce is a statmenet that makes cooridnation and sharing of thoughts among people to be convenitnet. THere is no established dictionary before the first circle came, people figured it out

i used this to understnad that its is not only on the speaker to make good description and conrevation, but the reader needs to work as well to iterpret. I didnt undrestand thw level of work I had to do before, but this made it more concrete on what is my responsiblity for undrestanding the owrk of others.

Fact-check notes: Wittgenstein’s two best-known philosophical books are Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations, but these are not everything he wrote. The Tractatus was completed in 1918, published in German in 1921 and in English in 1922; his Cambridge PhD came afterward, in 1929, with the Tractatus submitted as his dissertation. Trinity College archive. Philosophical Investigations was published by his literary executors in 1953, after his death in 1951. Other writings, including The Blue and Brown Books and On Certainty, also appeared posthumously. The Tractatus presents philosophical problems as arising from misunderstandings of language’s logic, but its account also concerns representation, logical form, and the limits of meaningful expression. His later philosophy criticizes important assumptions of that account rather than simply reversing everything. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Language-games developed in his work during the 1930s, including the Blue and Brown Books of 1933–1935, and became central to Philosophical Investigations. Sections 7 and 23 connect language with the activities in which it operates; section 43 explains meaning through use for a large class of cases, explicitly not every case. This is broader than saying language only coordinates people or requires guessing another person’s meaning. Philosophical Investigations, §§7, 23, 43. The circle example should be identified as your illustration, not a verified argument or quotation from Wittgenstein; his position does not make mathematics itself nonsense. Your conclusion about taking responsibility as a reader is a reasonable personal application, rather than a doctrine he explicitly states in those passages.