Discussions
Student Name
Course Name
Professor’s Name
Date
Discussions
David Wallace
One of David Wallace’s arguments concerning social reality is that individuals tend to see the world from their own perspective and think that the world and everything in it functions to support their existence. Unfortunately, mind-setting is a natural hard-wired setting that makes people substantially self-centered to the extent that they feel that their beliefs and mind-settings present realities that other individuals cannot alter with other opinions (Skittle, 2013). Hence, people will interpret every action or statement according to their beliefs. There are people capable of adjusting to the natural setting and are always known as properly-adjusted individuals.
Wallace further suggests that people can achieve proper adjustment by learning how to think. Such can be achieved by carefully selecting what one chooses to see in their environment and their interpretation according to external stimuli. Proper-adjustment means that an individual chooses what they pay attention to and meaning construction from experiences. According to Wallace, becoming properly-adjusted means that an individual acknowledges and appreciates that the world does not revolve around them and empowers other people in one’s social setting.
Wallace points out that becoming adjusted and training one’s mind to be empathetic is challenging and requires one to be strong and willing to undertake the challenging task. Thus, well-adjusted individuals can have days where they feel unwilling or unable to act accordingly. Nevertheless, constant self-awareness can help one to adjust their thought process accordingly. The consciousness helps one decided what has meaning and what lacks meaning.
Wallace’s arguments are cogent as they are depicting the reality that one has to deal with daily. I know there are situations where I have been frustrated by people’s actions, such as their driving techniques or failing to give way to the grocery store’s elder. Similarly, I have witnessed people being kind and understanding of strangers. Such social interactions show that some people know how to control their thoughts and actions while others have not.
The information relates to Nagel’s phenomenological approach as it shows that people’s actions towards others indicate failure to understand what they are going through comprehensively. Nagel’s phenomenological approach states that one cannot have a comprehensive understanding of another person’s thoughts and experiences. For example, one might be frustrated with a mother screaming at her children at the supermarket. However, the frustration emanates from the failure to adequately understand other challenges the mother might be dealing with that influence her actions. Nagel and Wallace’s arguments emphasize the subjective nature of human experiences.
Bertrand Russel
Russel argues that philosophy is key in keeping speculations regarding things that can not be scientifically explained alive. Philosophy is key in expanding human knowledge as science limits its coverage to a small proportion of things that interest humankind. Also, philosophy raises speculations about things that humankind should be interested in but is yet to be. According to Russel, philosophy helps the human race unlocks its imagination to things that might not yet be known (Philosophy Overdose, 2018). Philosophy ensures that the human race is constantly seeking new knowledge to explain events and objects.
Moreover, Russel reckons that philosophy is fundamental to inform people of things they think they know while unaware. Philosophy creates a balance between things that people might come to know in the future while constantly reminding them that limiting that knowledge to awareness of lack of knowledge is not practical knowledge. Russel explains that philosophy ensures that the human race does not rest and becomes content knowing that they do not know about something. Philosophy is a constant reminder to conduct research to generate knowledge on things that people should know.
Russell’s arguments are cogent. Russell remarks that philosophy helps in keeping the human race’s curiosity is fundamental in informing scientific knowledge. Ideally, philosophy is the foundation of any change as it inspires the population to ask questions that lay the foundation for change that meets their needs. Also, philosophy helps people seek refuge in knowing that there will be things that they do not know. However, commitment to gain knowledge encourages research that helps build human knowledge. I believe that philosophy forms the foundation of modern knowledge as it makes people aware of things that they are unaware of. Philosophy ensures that people are uncomfortable in not knowing certain things shaping their lives.
Russell is wrong about Marx not being a philosopher. Russell believed that philosophy should inspire human curiosity and lead to the discovery of other things. Marx’s definitive work led to the emergence of several revolutionary socialism perceived as a reaction towards increased capitalism and the challenges emerging. Evidently, Marx’s work on capitalism motivated the population to rethink its existing economic setting and seek to know how a different setting would influence their lives. Likewise, Marx’s view on materialism inspired society to implement changes that would bring forth socioeconomic change. Russell reckons that philosophy is important in bringing about relevant knowledge. I cannot entirely agree with his statement that Marx was not a philosopher as Marx was responsible for inspiring change by asking questions that inspired research and resulting social change.
References
Philosophy Overdose. (2018, November 21). Bertrand Russell on Philosophy (1960). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv_Ci4dB3NY
Skittle, L. (2013, May 19). This Is Water – Full version-David Foster Wallace Commencement Speech. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI