Blogs created by Anjali K

  Question: So far we have looked at the views of Aristotle and Schopenhauer on tragedy. In your blog post this week, talk about one feature of the views of Aristotle or Schopenhauer that you think helps us make sense of the way that tragedy works.  Answer: The views of Aristotle, is Aristotle thought that the goal of human beings in their search for happiness was to reach Eudemonia or a state of prosper. However, he agreed with Plato that virtue did not surely lead to a better life, but he did think that in order to achieve true state of Eudemonia, aiming for virtue as required. The main idea of Aristotle, can ensure that Aristotle's philosophy stresses biology, instead of mathematics like Plato. 

 Question: This week we talked about 'tragic pleasure'.  Why do you think we experience pleasure when watching tragedy? Is this like the pleasure we take on a crazy rollercoaster? Or a horror movie? Why do we find frightening things pleasurable? Answer: I think we experience pleasure when watching tragedy because what's bad in a tragedy is not the sensation, but the scene that obtains such commotion. Watching tragedy movies makes some people happy because it brings attention to positive features in their own lives. Therefore, we value tragedy because we derive pleasure from the skill the authors of tragedies reveal. When we get scared, we experience a rush of epinephrine and a release of endorphins. 

  Question: We often seek out experiences that give us a sense of danger or a kind of thrill that comes with a sense of fear. For example, some people like roller coasters, bungee jumping, extreme sports, horror films etc. Why do we seek out things that provide this sense of danger and fear, and does this help to explain why we like watching tragedy? Answer: We seek fear and danger because we know we are safe. When we get scared, we experience a rush of stress and anxiety and a release of endorphins and dopamine. In that case, we normally seek risk in order to avoid huge losses. This is affected by how likely it is that the outcome might occur. 

  Question: What did you learn about Martin Luther King this week? In this forum, you should write about something new or interesting you learned about King this week. Say whether this week's discussions have made you think differently about King and his legacy.   When you have finished your post, write a response to a classmate's post! Answer: One thing I learned about Martin Luther King is he showed us our lives must be intentionally and without regret. Which means, we must speak up in the face of injustices.  Martin Luther King advocated civil disobedience as well. His view of civil disobedience relates with a lot of Gandhi’s ideas. According to MLK, when one disobeys an unjust law, he must still have respect for the law, also, they must do this openly and must accept the penalty.  His speeches are very powerful and they get the message across to all.   He also taught us that it is one thing to say you have an idea and quite another to act on it. And the...

 Question: Pick one of the following. In your post, say what role this item plays in Anthony's argument for civil disobedience: 1) Natural Rights 2) The Declaration of Independence 3) The United States Constitution 4) The Social Contract and the Idea of Consent Answer: I pick natural rights because in Anthony's argument for civil disobedience he begins to explain how our government goes around an idea of freedom of speech. In that case, individuals like us human beings has the right to vote. Anthony wanted to communicate how every woman needs to have rights that men have too. Everything should be equally (life, liberty and property). These rights are for everyone and can't be taken away from anyone because it would be cruel. 

 Question: Gandhi argued that Satyagraha, a non-violent confrontation with the opponent, was always the right solution. In his book on Gandhi, Bikhu Parekh argues that this was a mistake in Gandhi's theory Hayim Greenberg, editor of The Jewish Frontier and an admirer of Gandhi, wrote to him, ‘a Jewish Gandhi in Germany, should one arise,could function for about five minutes and would be promptly taken to the guillotine’. Gandhi replied that Hitler too was a human being, that the Jews, who were going to be slaughtered anyway, should have asserted their dignity and freely chosen their way of death, and that such an action was bound to have an effect on ordinary Germans, if not immediately at least a little later (lxviii. 137–41). His reply had a point,but it rested on an uncritical faith in the power of non-violence, and showed little understanding of the complex ways in which totalitarian systems brutalized the community, demoralized the victims, distorted public discourse...