To Much of A Good Thing-THIS IS MY AP LANG BLOG
Utilitarianism is the philosophical belief that a morally good act produces the best results, always. As simple as this might sound, this has been the subject of numerous debates. For example, if there is good in the world, and we focus on that, is hedonism or Utilitarianism? For example, crack cocaine produces a "good" feeling, but is it really a good feeling if its slowly killing you? Or if the feeling has been entirely manufactured by a chemical formula? So putting it bluntly, no, pleasure by itself cannot be utilitarianism, their needs to be a little more than that. But neither can it just be doing what you feel is right, because intuition can mislead you. So basically, to be a Utilitarianist,
you need to be creating goodness that is not the result of anything more
than a good, decent act; and the act has to be one that not just you
but everyone else agrees is the right thing to do. So by now the
simplicity of Utilitarianism is lost, and is looking about as hopeless
as a lapsed Calvinists prospects of Salvation. This is my problem with all philosophies-from YOLO to to much of a good thing is to much of a good thing. Eventually, problems are going to be caused by it. Firm believers in YOLO might find themselves arrested for partaking in pleasure via dealing and using heroin. And too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing is proven true
by the fact that you can never have too much non-polluted breathable
air. Yeah that last ones a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean.
So the problem with utilitarianism isn't that it's not good, its just
that it's goodness is incalculable, because, honestly, who's to say what
is right and wrong? This is why I confirm to the only philosophy I've
found works most of the time-just do your best and try not to screw up.
And it works. To some degree. Mostly.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
To Much of A Good Thing-THIS IS MY AP LANG BLOG
Utilitarianism is the philosophical belief that a morally good act produces the best results, always. As simple as this might sound, this has been the subject of numerous debates. For example, if there is good in the world, and we focus on that, is hedonism or Utilitarianism? For example, crack cocaine produces a "good" feeling, but is it really a good feeling if its slowly killing you? Or if the feeling has been entirely manufactured by a chemical formula? So putting it bluntly, no, pleasure by itself cannot be utilitarianism, their needs to be a little more than that. But neither can it just be doing what you feel is right, because intuition can mislead you. So basically, to be a Utilitarianist, you need to be creating goodness that is not the result of anything more than a good, decent act; and the act has to be one that not just you but everyone else agrees is the right thing to do. So by now the simplicity of Utilitarianism is lost, and is looking about as hopeless as a lapsed Calvinists prospects of Salvation. This is my problem with all philosophies-from YOLO to to much of a good thing is to much of a good thing. Eventually, problems are going to be caused by it. Firm believers in YOLO might find themselves arrested for partaking in pleasure via dealing and using heroin. And too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing is proven true by the fact that you can never have too much non-polluted breathable air. Yeah that last ones a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean. So the problem with utilitarianism isn't that it's not good, its just that it's goodness is incalculable, because, honestly, who's to say what is right and wrong? This is why I confirm to the only philosophy I've found works most of the time-just do your best and try not to screw up. And it works. To some degree. Mostly.
Utilitarianism is the philosophical belief that a morally good act produces the best results, always. As simple as this might sound, this has been the subject of numerous debates. For example, if there is good in the world, and we focus on that, is hedonism or Utilitarianism? For example, crack cocaine produces a "good" feeling, but is it really a good feeling if its slowly killing you? Or if the feeling has been entirely manufactured by a chemical formula? So putting it bluntly, no, pleasure by itself cannot be utilitarianism, their needs to be a little more than that. But neither can it just be doing what you feel is right, because intuition can mislead you. So basically, to be a Utilitarianist, you need to be creating goodness that is not the result of anything more than a good, decent act; and the act has to be one that not just you but everyone else agrees is the right thing to do. So by now the simplicity of Utilitarianism is lost, and is looking about as hopeless as a lapsed Calvinists prospects of Salvation. This is my problem with all philosophies-from YOLO to to much of a good thing is to much of a good thing. Eventually, problems are going to be caused by it. Firm believers in YOLO might find themselves arrested for partaking in pleasure via dealing and using heroin. And too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing is proven true by the fact that you can never have too much non-polluted breathable air. Yeah that last ones a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean. So the problem with utilitarianism isn't that it's not good, its just that it's goodness is incalculable, because, honestly, who's to say what is right and wrong? This is why I confirm to the only philosophy I've found works most of the time-just do your best and try not to screw up. And it works. To some degree. Mostly.
THE CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT
When we think of horror, we think of dripping, bloody gore or maniacal serial killers. But for me, true horror has always been literary. And there is no greater work of modern horror, than Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula. Set in the Victorian age, the story begins when young Jonathan Harker travels from England to Transylvania to handle a real estate brokerage for Carfax Abbey, a property being bought by a certain Count Dracula. As uninteresting as this first seems to be, it corresponds to the now cliched college students driving along a back road when something horrible happens. After meeting some locals who react with mild concern (i.e. blind panic) when he explains that he is going to Castle Dracula, he arrives at the castle and the whole nightmare unfolds. From a near fatal encounter with three whore-iffic undead brides, to witnessing a woman ripped to pieces by wolves, Mr. Harker's stay at Castle Dracula is hardly a pleasant weekend trip. And once Dracula moves into his new estate in England, the fun (terror) really starts! With an unusual cast of characters for a British 1800's novel ( a woman, an American, a psychiatrist, and a Dutchman, along with Mr. Harker) this novel not only tells the story of the now world renowned Count, but does so in such a way as to make it seem real. Through the use of epistolary writing (telling the story through diary entries, phonograph recordings, letters, and other such mediums)Bram stoker created what can be called the true, first horror novel.
When we think of horror, we think of dripping, bloody gore or maniacal serial killers. But for me, true horror has always been literary. And there is no greater work of modern horror, than Bram Stoker's novel, Dracula. Set in the Victorian age, the story begins when young Jonathan Harker travels from England to Transylvania to handle a real estate brokerage for Carfax Abbey, a property being bought by a certain Count Dracula. As uninteresting as this first seems to be, it corresponds to the now cliched college students driving along a back road when something horrible happens. After meeting some locals who react with mild concern (i.e. blind panic) when he explains that he is going to Castle Dracula, he arrives at the castle and the whole nightmare unfolds. From a near fatal encounter with three whore-iffic undead brides, to witnessing a woman ripped to pieces by wolves, Mr. Harker's stay at Castle Dracula is hardly a pleasant weekend trip. And once Dracula moves into his new estate in England, the fun (terror) really starts! With an unusual cast of characters for a British 1800's novel ( a woman, an American, a psychiatrist, and a Dutchman, along with Mr. Harker) this novel not only tells the story of the now world renowned Count, but does so in such a way as to make it seem real. Through the use of epistolary writing (telling the story through diary entries, phonograph recordings, letters, and other such mediums)Bram stoker created what can be called the true, first horror novel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)