Billie J. Cullison

Mrs. Wilhelmus

AP English Language

9 August 2013

Where I Fall

     Personally, I felt the strongest connect to Plato's view of women. He understood that something's container does not give proper basis by which to judge it. It brings to mind the popular saying “Do not judge a book by its cover.” He saw how society had put forth limitations for women. Things such as how a woman must stay in the home and take care of the children. He understood that if those limitations were taken away, a woman could do the same job as a man. He did not let physical differences judge the intelligence of what are basically the same creations, woman and man.

     Aristotle, on the other hand, grinds my gears. He believed that women were incomplete men, taking ideas from the biblical story of woman being created from the rib of Adam. This idea to me is preposterous. Even more infuriating is the idea that women are passive. Whether it be in society or in procreation, women are far from passive creatures. We can hunt, fight, steal, and care for ourselves as well as the next creature.

     Finally, I would like to think I am in the middle of the rabbit's hair. I try to put myself out there, think outside of the box, and ponder new ideas no matter how far out they are. Though, I have a tendency to become overwhelmed with or cynical of these new ideas. This sends me towards the rabbit and away from new philosophical ideas. I attempt to push into new territory when I can, but my history and person philosophy make me a bit skeptical of certain new ideas. Someday, I would like to move to the tip of the rabbit's fur and feel comfortable with the most far out idea, but that seems like a far away place at the moment.

Billie J. Cullison

Mrs. Wilhelmus

AP English Language

7 August 2013

How I See It

     Kant was a philosopher who attempted mix reason and perception. He believed that we perceived everything with reasonable preconceptions. These preconceptions being things such as everything happening in a point in time and space. Alberto explains this to Sophie giving her red sunglasses. When she puts them on, everything she perceives is red, but she understands that reasonably everything is not in fact red. This shows how Kant combined reason and perception.

     We can apply this idea to real life. Say upon meeting someone, they act demanding and bossy. They are ordering everyone around and telling them where things go. One would perceive this person as bossy and not someone they want to spend time with. Although, if one applied reason to the situation, one would realize that they are in a theatre and the bossy person is the director, whose job it is to order people around and make decisions. One could also reason that the director may act differently around people outside of the work place.

     In reverse, if someone takes balls out of a bag and the first twelve are red, one can reason that the next one will be red also, but then the person pulled out the thirteenth ball and it is blue. One can see that reason has failed them and perception corrected the incorrect assumption.

     In conclusion, one can see that reason and perception go hand in hand. Reason helps us to perceive things in a clearer light and perception helps us when reason is not correct.

Billie J. Cullison

Mrs. Wilhelmus

AP English Language

1 August 2013

Christianity and Philosophy

      When Christianity was applied to the ideas of philosophers who lived and died centuries before Christ, a sort of melding happened. The new philosophers saw matching points between what Aristotle (among others) and God had said. These philosophers used the Bible to fill in holes in Aristotle's ideas.

An example being that Aristotle believed there was a God that start all natural processes, but goes no further in explaining him. People then turned to the Bible to fill out Aristotle's idea.

     Philosophers, like Thomas Aquinas, went so far as to say one could prove the existence of God, or some formal cause, using Aristotle's teachings. He separated the idea into two paths, the 'theology of faith' and 'natural theology'. Basically, he explained that there are two paths to God, one being faith and the other being reason. It was ideas like this that showed how, if one understood and tried hard enough, one could find a cohesiveness between a centuries old philosopher's reason and the widespread faith still strong from the Middle Ages.

     He also spoke of innate natural truths that one could achieve through either faith or reason. Sophie's World describes it as a deaf person and a blind person near a thunderstorm. The deaf person knows of the storm because of the lightning. The blind person hears the thunder and perceives the storm that way. Of course, the storm would be easier to perceive and comprehend if one had both of those senses, it can still be detected. This is much like how an idea can be understood through reason and faith, but one may understand the expanse of the idea better if they looked at it through both points of view.

       In conclusion, the 'christenization' of philosophers brought together religion and philosophy in a palatable, cohesive way.

Billie J. Cullison
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
30 July 2013

Aristotle, Philosophy, and the Ladies

Aristotle's views on women, as less than men, but higher than slaves, could have been worse. He could have viewed women as slaves, like some people did and still do. Although, there is something in his oversight of women that I still see today in many people's views. Some women that I have met even have this sense of internalized misogyny. They look at themselves in such a terrible light. They believe that if they do not fit in a mold, like the perfect wife in a nuclear family or the slim, beautiful, young girl. They believe that they are only of value if men like them or deem them of value. They look at themselves in direct correlation with how men look at them. So, I see Aristotle's views as reprehensible, but not uncommon.
On the other hand, there is Plato's view of women. His belief that the body had no effect on one's reasoning skills. He understood that because someone's physical attributes were different did not mean that they could not rule if given the same training as everyone else. I find his ideas admirable and interesting.
I am a raging feminist. I will admit that in basically an forum. My ideals for equally are not something I like to hide. The mere fact that most of the people in Sophie's World are men follows the general line of any history book. Men doing big important things for chapters on end and then a little paragraph stating something like 'women were also doing important things and were a part of these events, but since not a lot of people were paying attention to them we do not really know a lot about what they did.' I am almost sure that there were women thinking things along the same lines as the big philosophers, but were pushed aside because of their gender. It does bother me that women were not a bigger part of early philosophy, but it does make me happy that now women can be a part of things like philosophy.

Billie J. Cullison
Mrs. Wilhelmus
Ap English Language
27 July 2013

It Is All About Origins

When asking the question "Who am I?", you have to delve deeper into the question to answer it. This is because question itself does not specify any parameters. One could answer it by saying, I am a daughter and granddaughter and a great granddaughter. This explains who I am through my relation to my ancestors and blood relatives. Another option is by putting labels to one's self. 'I am a Whovian, an agnostic, and feminist.' Although this raises even more questions as the parameters of these labels are different and definable by the person who uses them.
So to answer the question, 'who am I?' I have to say I am woman, a child, a daughter, and a granddaughter. These words define me by DNA and relation to those who have gone before me. I can also say I am afraid, confused, and excited as these are the emotions I experience. I can say that I am strong and adaptative as those are the things that people have attributed to me. In addition, I can state that I am a nerd, an aspiring scientist and writer, and I am television enthusiast, as I am interested in those things.
I  could go on forever about what makes me up, but to answer the question in one sentence, I am only defined by my relation to the things and people around me. This constantly changed by what changes around me. This brings me to the conclusion that I am always changing and cannot be defined in a few words, because, like the ocean, I am in a constant state of cause, effect, and change.
As to where the world came from, I believe in the idea that the world was formed by a big bang. I see us as cosmic accidents. I do not believe there is a sentient being looking over us. I understand the world as having an energy, not something that constantly pays attention to our actions, but something like a soul or even a computer program.This can lead to the train of thought that maybe that is all we are. A computer scenario running its course on some giant computer. To me, that is a terrifying thought. The option that we are all ones and zeros on a big screen. To answer the question, 'where does the world come from?'. I believe we started as something scientific, whether it be an experiment or an accident. I believe we are all made of stardust.