Alex Kollar

28 August 2016

PHIL 101

Socrates Apology Response

This piece records Socrates calling out those who accuse him of

wrongdoing. He is accused of studying things in the sky and below the

earth and making the worse into the stronger argument, and he

teaches these same things to others. He calls his accusers liars and

spends the rest of his essay defending his position.

I find it interesting when Socrates first talks about human

wisdom. What exactly does that mean? He goes on to talk about how

he listened to a speaker while thinking, I am wiser than this man. He

elaborates while saying that he is only wiser because he admits that he

knows little, while that man believed that he holds a vast knowledge of

many things. Socrates continues to talk about this notion of true

wisdom by talking about artists who create their works not with

knowledge, but with raw talent. So I guess Socrates is making the

claim that having great knowledge is not necessary when you have

natural talent.

He also commented on Meletus, the man who was bringing him

to court, by saying that Meletus had accused him of corrupting the

minds of young men with his teachings. Socrates response to this

claim was he was not forcing his ideals upon those young minds but
that those men were naturally drawn to Socrates teaches because he

was actively exposing scholars who claimed they knew everything.

In this part of the text I see many parallels to modern youths

relationship to conventional or more structural systems. Throughout

history there is a common trend of youth pushing away from the elder

generations way of thinking, and this is classic example. Those who

are in power fear those who are non-conformists to their way of

thinking. Though, it could be argued that Meletus is truly trying to

maintain peace because with non-conformity comes the risk of

weakening a stable community. So what is more important:

individuality or the stability of the greater population?

Alex Kollar

1 September 2016

Philosophy 101

Phaedo Response

I think this is the first time that I really felt sorry for Socrates. The poor guys is

seventy-something years old, has been put on trial by his own countrymen, is about to

die, and now he has people hovering around his deathbed, asking him philosophical

questions. If I were Socrates, I would just want to take a nap! As I read the questions that

Simmias and Cebes asked him about whether looking forward to death was a form of

suicide and thus dishonorable for a philosopher, I found myself thinking, Whats the

point of debating this? It doesnt change the fact that after this dialogue, Socrates is going

to have to just that! So I guess I was asking: whats the point of philosophy if by the end

of the day, nothing will change? Why did Socrates, and so many other philosophers,

dedicate their lives to this field?

I dont think Ill ever be able to answer this question; theres just too much about

philosophy I will never understand. I can, however, try to attack it as best I can. From my

perspective, posing this question is like asking, Whats the point of art? Painting a

picture and hanging it on a wall doesnt actively make the world a better place; it doesnt
stop people from dying of poverty or war. So why create art at all? What about theater?

Why does that exist and what is the point of performing a play? Or what about sports?

Millions of dollars are thrown into the sports world every year so we can all watch a

bunch of sweaty people throw and kick balls around giant stadiums. Think of all the lives

we could have saved with that money. Looking at the world from that angle just makes

me depressed.

For me, I couldnt imagine a world without art; I honestly dont even think that

would be possible. I love creating and I truly believe that creativity is a God-given gift

that separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. I even appreciate sports

because of the unity that they create among individuals. All of these things (art, athletics,

philosophy) enrich the human experience. With that perspective I think I can understand a

bit more how Socrates felt about philosophy. He spent the majority of his life digging

deeper into what it means to be a human and is still challenging mankind to think. I know

that Phaedo is packed full of important questions and theories about the soul and life

after death, but honestly the fact that Socrates is willfully having these discussions just

hours before his death is a testament to how important philosophy is.

Alex Kollar

23 October 2016

PHIL 101

The Illusion of Free Will by Paul Holbach

Holbachs main claim is that free will does not exist. He begins

his discussion by listing many factors of life in which humans have no

control over, including where we are born, our birth parents, our

physique, etc. From this, he states that our very nature, our survival

instincts, act as predetermining elements of humanity. He gives the

example of a thirsty man that will drink from a fountain, not out of

choice, but necessity. In contrast, that same thirsty man will abstain

from drinking the water if it is poisoned, again, not out of choice but

from a desire to survive.

Though I understand Holbachs reasoning, I dont agree with it.

Yes, we are bound to the logic of this natural world, for example, we

dont have a choice to obey the law of gravity it just is a fact of life,

which is Holbachs point. But if gravity didnt exist, we wouldnt have a

choice either, we would just float off into space and die. Now which

sounds like the better deal? My point is that I agree with Holbachs
argument of humanity having no control over the natural laws of this

world but I dont think that those laws that are irrefutable, facts of life

should be in the same category of free will. That mans innate response

is to drink the water to quench his thirst, but he doesnt have to. He

can choose to walk away and remain thirsty just like I can make the

choice to walk into moving traffic and end my life. Of course, I believe

that God gave us natural instincts to combat such foolish thinking, but I

dont think that is the same as have no free will at all.

Alex Kollar
13 October 2016
PHIL 101
Response

The Wager by Blaise Pascal and Will to Believe by William James

Pascal argues that Christianity can be boiled down to a gamble:
betting our entire life on a single man (Jesus). He claims that if
Christians truly do believe in an infinite God it only makes sense that
no one can rationalize such a belief. He argues that the concept of
infinity is far beyond any human understanding, even for those who
believe in His existence, 100%. A religion based man, based a God,
based on an unfathomable concept; no wonder non-Christians find it
hard to follow.
With this model, there really is no visible loss for Christians. On
this earth, if we live out our lives with biblical teachings as our
foundational principles, there one of two endings: (1) Jesus teachings
are true and we are called up to heaven, or (2) our God doesnt
actually exist, but we still lived out our lives in a pretty morally sound
way (depending on your perspective). In the end, not a bad deal;
except for the non-Christians who dont understand our blind faith.
Pascals argument is a vital insight into the minds of non-
believers. To them, our faith is irrational: How could someone put their
faith in something they dont understand? Enter William James and his
argument about the validity of believing in the irrational.
James answers this question by calling about humanitys innate
desire to know truth and fear of failing. His main argument falls upon
the foundation of the three characteristics of human decision: forced
option (having choose between only 2), living option (relevancy), and
momentous option (will it change a life). By basing the decision to
follow Christ on this criteria does away with the irrational notions
concerning the choice found in Pascals argument; it shows that it IS a
rational decision. Both Pascal and James give insight to struggle
Christians have in explaining their faith to the secular world, insight
that we implement into our everyday rhetoric.
Alex Kollar

31 August 2016

PHIL 101

Response

Crito by Plato

The main issue posed in Platos Crito deals with what is defined

as just and unjust. While Socrates is imprisoned awaiting his execution,

his dear friend, Crito, tries to convince him to break out. Plato presents

this interaction as a dialogue between Socrates, Crito, and the voice of

the Law of Athens.

 What struck me as the most interesting, is Socrates defense of

the Athenian law. He claims that it would be unjust to follow the wishes

of his friends (the people) and thus remains in prison. Although I

personally found Critos arguments pretty convincing, Socrates

remained stoic. However, this does beg the question of justice. I find it

contradicting for Socrates to spend so much time in his Apology

questioning the governments judgment and piety, to seemingly switch

his perspective and defend the state. From a pessimistic perspective, it

would seem that Socrates could be acting self-righteous. Now that he

is imprisoned he is willing to comply and even agree with his just

captors. Though this is a perspective that could be looked at further, I

think the truth lies deeper than a self-righteous persona.

So then what is more unjust: a man imprisoned for perhaps the

wrong reasons, or man running from his sentence?

Alex Kollar

10/31/16

PHIL 101

Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility by Harry Frankfurt

In this paper, Frankfurt presents the principle of alternate

possibilities that explains that a person is morally responsible for what

he/she has done only if he/she could have done otherwise. He also
draws on another unnamed theory that claims that no person is

morally responsible for a decision he/she makes if he/she is coerced.

Throughout the essay, Frankfurts main point is to find a

counterexample for the principle of alternate possibilities.

He provides the example of Jones, a man who decided to do an

action on his own will but is then threated to do that very action or he

will be injured. Jones completes the action, but not because he is

forced but because he wants to, thus, Frankfurt offers this as a valid

counterexample. I do see this as a successful example of Frankfurts

point, and I understand that people would compromise their morals if

they or their loved ones were being threatened. This, however, does

not pardon the action. Even though they were forced to commit an

action and should not be necessarily held accountable for the

consequences (legally), this doesnt mean that their sins are washed

clean, metaphorically. Humans are complex thinkers and emotional

beings, if you are forced to kill a woman and child because your family

would be harmed if you didnt, you may not be guilty of willingly

committing the crime, but you still pulled the trigger. The justice

system may not make you pay for your crime; you will have to struggle

with that reality for the rest of your life.

Alex Kollar

11 November 2016

PHIL 101
Response

Eliminative Materialism by Paul Churchland

In this piece, Churchland explores the concept of eliminative

materialism, the idea that our understanding of psychology does not

match up with our underlying physiological mechanisms. He claims

that our scientific understanding of mental life cannot describe our

mental life in other contexts. He provides the strange historical

example of how people used to think that phlogiston existed in woods

and metals and believed that when wood burned or metal rusted that it

was this substance being released in the air; of course now we know

that this is false. Churchland claims that this can be applied to our

understanding of pain, belief, sadness, happiness, etc.

To use this comparison seems really wrong. To say that we dont

have complete understanding of what makes us human just like we

have mysteries of the natural world is like saying that theres no way

well understand why people feel sad because at one point in history

people thought the world was flat. Although I do agree that the human

is a complex creature, I think its a bit of stretch to compare our inner

workings to the even more complex workings of the natural world.

Alex Kollar
11/14/16

PHIL 101

Response

Functionalism by Paul Churchland and

Robots and Minds by William Lynch

Churchland defines functionalism as believing that responses are

products of environmental effects on the body, previous mental states,

and behavior. He argues that no matter who you are, if you are

exposed to events that cause pain you will experience pain. Though we

may all agree that losing a loved one or being hit by a car both cause

pain (though theyre different kinds of pain), each person will

eventually deal with it in varied ways. The first response maybe similar

but a psychopath will not have the same response as sane person.

William introduces the concept of artificial intelligence mimicking

those human responses to stimuli. Even though a computer cannot

perfectly reflect humanity, it can be programed to respond to events in

a humanlike manner. However, William argues that displaying

humanlike responses does not mean that a computer is conscious and

he goes on to say that it is not just the biological makeup that dictates

whether something has a conscious. So what is it then? What dictates

being conscious? It must be more than having an intelligence creator

because even though it can be argued that humans have an

intelligence Creator, computers also are complex enough to need

intelligence behind their design. But it can be argued that conscious

can only be given by an omnipresent, divine being who has the power

to create, not only conscious creatures, but also entire universes. Last

time I checked, humans dont have that ability.

Alex Kollar

4 October 2016

PHIL 101

Response

The Argument from Design Response

In this piece, William Paley argues for the existence of an

Intelligent Designer. To explain his reasoning, he uses the analogy of a

rock and a watch. He says that when we happen upon a rock, we can

be assured in knowing that since the rock is a part of nature that it has

existed for a long period of time. On the other hand, when we happen

upon a watch, a man-made object, we can conclude that because a

human made it for a specific purpose, it thus has an intelligent

designer. Paley uses this analogy to explain that, like the watch, the

universe is made up of a complex collections of galaxies and worlds

that were created for a specific purpose, and so also has an intelligent

designer; God.

If we are to follow his analogy of the rock and the watch, one

could question why the universe is more relatable to the watch rather

than the rock. The universe seems too complex to be represented by a

simple watch, however, I understand Paleys attempt. The creator saw

a need for an object to record and track time and so invented the
watch, but if one were to believe that the rock serves no actual

purpose, is one supposed to believe that the Intelligent Designer also

creates things that do not serve a purpose other than simply existing? I

would argue that everything in the universe has a purpose. Without the

rock, the inventor of the watch would not have the material to make

the watch.

Alex Kollar

12 September 2016

PHIL 101

Response

Second Meditation Response

When I was younger I would ask questions like, Why do we have

bodies? Why do we need to breathe? Why were we made to walk

around the way we do? I found myself remembering these questions

as I read this piece. I dont think I knew I was questioning my mortality;

I just had these quandaries in my head and I didnt know why. I was so

young when I was thinking these thoughts; I guess I just wasnt afraid

of them. Now that I am older, I can empathize with Descartes. As we

get older those questions become terrifying.

During his pondering of this subject, Descartes discusses many

thought-provoking topics, including his struggle between his mind and

his body. It seems to boil down to which is more reliable: the mind or

the body? I think the mind is easily tricked and our perspective and
reality can be easily distorted. Just think of the power that rhetoric has

over our minds everyday; we are always being persuaded to do or

believe something. But think about our bodies. When you put your

hand on something hot, your body responds instantly to the sensation

and acts upon it automatically. There is no second-guessing or outward

interference in that situation, your hand is hot and so your body reacts.

When you think about our natural instincts, though, it really just

comes back to the brain, the mind. However, this isnt the part of your

mind that is easily distracted with the world, it is the hundreds of

synapses that are continuously firing to process and transfer

information.

This mind isnt the one that Descartes is talking about, though.

He talks about the mind that runs on imagination, spontaneity, and the

desire to analyze the world. So should we trust the body and its

natural responses to the world or maybe the mind behind those

responses? What about the parts of the human mind that crafts our

lenses through which we view and experience the world? Well we cant

really turn any of them off, seeing as they are all a part of what a

human being is, and they arent really separate parts at all. I

understand Descartes thinking, but at the end of the day these are the

traits that make us uniquely human and we rely on all of our senses to

experience and interact with the world.

Alex Kollar

2 October 2016

PHIL 101

Of the Principles of Human Knowledge Response

Berkeley seeks to understand how humans rationalize what

makes up our reality. He first claims that our five senses are the tools

we use to assign meaning to objects of this world. He gives the

example that observing a certain color, taste, smell, figure, and

consistence together are accounted one distinct thing, signified by the

name apple. Berkeley goes on to explain that ideas and concepts

cannot exist without a mind perceiving them, while we can be certain

that physical objects exist because we experience them and perceive

them as real. He also goes on to explore abstract ideas, concepts that

we do not directly experience in the world (as we do with physical

things) but that come to be by interpreting those real things and

distorting them in our minds. For example: although a pig with wings is

not something that is universally understood as real, we can still take

the idea of a pig and the concept of flying and combine them

together to create that image. This, however, does not make the image

a part of reality.

Berkeley never really addresses his thoughts about how these

conditions of human understanding rationalize the existence of God.

Towards the end, he does finally mention the counterargument: if

everything in reality only exists because we perceive it to exist, then

does that mean Nature is banished out of the world? I can only

imagine that Nature represents the existence of a Divine Creator.

Berkeley responds to this notion of Nature by saying the by the

principles premised, we are not deprived of any one thing in Nature,

but then doesnt really go into detail about what that means.

As Christians, if we are to truly believe our theology, we cannot

rely on beliefs that emphasis reality as being based purely on our

understandings. Although I do agree with Berkeleys explanation of our

senses, I cannot support how his conclusions seem to factor the

existence of God out of the equation. If the things that make up our

reality are only that which we experience or concoct in our minds, then
that would mean that it would be more than likely that an omnipresent

Being does not exist, simply because we do not perceive that

existence.

However, a second interpretation of Berkeleys effort to explain

this idea of Nature could actually swing to the complete opposite

side of the argument. It could be completely possible that we live in a

world that was created by God who, then, bestowed upon it the

principles that Berkeley explains (the senses, imagination vs. reality,

etc.). One could make this argument in support of the author, but I still

believe that his explanation, or lack there of, for the possible existence

of God is too vague for it to line up with the basic concepts of Christian

theology. If reality were based only on our perception, then that means

we would have the ability to create a reality where there is no God.

This arguments greatest flaw is the omission of faith.

Alex Kollar

21 October 2016

PHIL 101

Response

Freedom of the Will by Peter Van Inwagen

 In this work, Van Inwagen wrestles with the concepts of free will

and determinism. He describes free will as the stumbling upon a fork in

the road and having to choose between the two paths. On the other

hand, Van Inwagen describes determinism as having the ability to

choose only one path because it is the right or predetermined path;

there is no choice. Van Inwagen also introduces the idea of

compatibilism, the idea that free will and determinism are compatible.

He takes issue with this definition because this it would mean that

there are multiple possible futures and that the argument must rule

out the No Choice Principle.

Arguing that compatibilism is invalid simply because it is not

determinism seems unfair. If having free will means there are multiple

branching paths, it does not mean that those paths could, conceivably,

converge to a predetermined outcome. An important element that Van

Inwagen leaves out is the existence of an omnipresent Creator. Even

when including God in this argument, when talking about determinism,

one might have to consider a single end goal that would call for such

predetermined paths. But why? Wouldnt it make more sense for the

Creator to grant humanity free will to choose between predetermined

paths? This could be a possible solution to Van Inwagens mystery.

Alex Kollar

4 September 2016
PHIL 101

Euthanasia Response

Rachels main question he poses in this article is, What is the difference between

killing someone and letting someone die? The way he illustrates this topic is quite

dramatic, but gets the point across. He sets up two scenarios, (1) a man who actively

drowns a child and (2) a man who refuses to save a child who is in the process of

drowning. To any sane person both of these men would be considered murders, but

perhaps not have the same court sentence. After illustrating these scenarios, Rachels

claims that it doesnt make sense to call both these men murders while not labeling

doctors who practice both active and passive euthanasia as such as well.

By Rachels illustrations standards, any form of euthanasia is technically

killing. But this definition cannot be used for every situation and I think its a bit unfair

when we consider the doctors who are at the forefront of this discussion. I appreciate that

Rachels does make it a point to talk about how these decisions weight on a doctors heart;

at the end of they day, they are human too. From my perspective, although I would like to

say that the topic and definition of euthanasia should be handled per individual case,

putting so much responsibility on a single doctor is so wrong and unrealistic. Although

the AMAs law may not be perfect, and we can sit and argue about morals forever, I

understand why there is a strict code of conduct that limits a doctors actions. For me to

make any further opinions or judgments on the subject, I think I would need to hear the

opinions of a few doctors.

Alex Kollar

18 September 2016
PHIL 101

Dialogues Part XI Response

This world of pain and hardship is all that humans have ever known. How, Hume

seems to ponder, can we possibly fully comprehend a world without such challenges?

From a biblical perspective we are able to rationalize such overwhelming questions with

the belief that humans were not made to understand such other worldly existences. Even

so, I think most believers have asked questions about what life will be like in the

presence of God in Heaven. Even if physical pain does not exist in such a place, will we

still feel the emotional grief and mourn our loved ones who were not taken into heaven?

What about God? Ive heard many people say that God feels pain, sorrow, and anger; He

even describes Himself as a jealous God. These are such powerful emotions that, from

our mortal perspective, have always been associated with negative circumstances and

experiences.

When God created Adam in His own image, I dont think He solely reflected His

form, but also His powerful emotions. It could even be argued that Genesis 1:26 isnt

referring to physical appearance at all, but to the unique ability to feel that separated

God from His creation. Continuing with this argument, it could explain Humes

ponderings about the differences between humans and animals abilities to experience

such pain. Every living creature experiences physical pain but since humans are more like

God (compared to the rest of creation) when we are physically hurt, we experience pain

on an emotional level as well.

Alex Kollar

22 September 2016
PHIL 101

Response

The Argument from Evil Response

Inwagen presents two basic, irrefutable truths about God: He is

omnipresent and morally perfect. If most Christians were confronted

with these truths, I would assume that almost all of them would agree;

myself included. When facing the issue of evil existing in a world that

was created by a perfect and just Creator my natural response, that

Inwagen touches on, is the free-will argument. However, this argument

doesnt account for natural disasters. Even if the original sin never

happened and evil did not exist in the world, I doubt that this would

stop tsunamis from engulfing coastal regions, volcanoes from bursting,

and hurricanes from wreaking havoc.

It could be argued that the inherit evil that is present in this

world exists to shape humanity into the people that God desires us to

be. This argument, soul-shaping, seems to fill in the gaps that Inwagen

points out in the free-will theory, but why would God create an

incomplete creation? I would argue, to provide an answer to

humanitys greatest question: Why do we exist? If God created

humanity with the ability to be so aware our own existence, it would be

so cruel to not give us a purpose to peruse.

Alex Kollar

15 September 2016

PHIL 101

Response

"Fourth Meditation" Response

I remember sitting in my BITH 111 lecture class in

uncomfortable silence right after the prof asked, If God created

everything, did He create evil? That was a lot of theology for my

freshman brain to process. Descartes brings this question almost

immediately. I would to agree that it seems strange that a God who is

all good and holy would create beings that were capable of such

wickedness. I think this is an argument that non-believers like to use to

disprove Christianity. In that context it seems like a huge loophole in

the whole idea of God as the perfect Creator. Of course the Christian

response is the explanation of the Fall; but why was Satan even

allowed to exists let alone be allowed in the Garden?

Descartes starts to answer this question with his understanding

that there is in fact an almighty God. He states, I clearly infer that God

also exists, and that every single moment of my entire existence

depends on him. So we have the idea of a perfect God who creates

the human race with an innate spirit that desires Him. This is where

things get tricky. From my perspective, yes, humans do a lot of horrible

things; human history is written in blood. On the other hand, we have

the incredible ability to make amazing this happen. We can love each

other, heal each other, create for one another, and build things

together. I believe God did create us with the ability to choose to use

our gifts for good or evil. I mean if God is the Creator of the universe,

we cant call Him the Creator of only the good parts of the universe.

If God is all knowing, as we believe Him to be, then He knew that

humanity would fall into evil yet He spoke us into being. I believe that

God created us to be perfect, but with an ability to choose to not be

perfect.