Megan O’Leary
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
5 August 2013
Where I Stand on the Rabbit’s Fur
Many different philosophies and belief systems were explained and discussed throughout
Sophie's World. I agreed with the majority of these philosophies, but some ideas did not make sense
to me. I agreed most with Plato’s ideas about form and the idea that the world is characterized by
opposite poles of good and bad. I disagree with many of the natural philosopher’s thoughts as well as
Aristotle’s views on gender. Being able to agree and disagree with various philosophies and form my
own ideas, I think I reside near the top of the rabbit’s fur.
In the “Hellenism” chapter, Alberto teaches Sophie about the philosopher Plotinus and his
philosophies. Plotinus believed the world contained two poles of light and darkness. At one end there
is a divine light called the One, and at the other end there is absence of the One, or darkness. I agree
with this, because I believe in God, or the One, and the idea that wherever God cannot be found,
there is darkness. The other philosopher I most agree with is Plato and his ideas of form. Alberto
explains that Plato believed everything is made after a timeless ‘mold’ or ‘form’ that is eternal and
immutable. I like this idea as well as his other belief of our souls searching for true knowledge.
I found it hard to understand the natural philosopher’s theories. For example, Thales believed all
things came from water. I personally think that is outrageous. It is impossible for everything to be
made up of just water alone. Another natural philosopher, Anaximenes, thought the source of all
things was air. I find this equally as improbable. Another theory that I completely disagreed with was
Aristotle’s views on gender and opinions of women. He truly believed women did not hold as much
potential as men and were incomplete. Obviously, his theories on this subject are wrong.
As far as where I am located on the rabbit’s fur, I think I am near the highest point. Before reading
Gaarder’s novel, however, I was next to the rabbit’s skin. Sophie’s World thoroughly explained
philosophy in a simple and enjoyable manner to where I was able to grasp the concepts with ease.
Anyone can think philosophically and climb higher on the rabbit’s fur if they have an open mind.
Reading this book allowed me to reflect on myself, the world, and how everything came to be, which
is why I think I am now higher on the rabbit’s fur.
While reading this book, I came across many philosophies of which I had strong opinions. Some
of the philosophers had ideas that I firmly believed as well. Other philosophers, however, had ideas
that I disagreed completely with. Every individual has varying beliefs, and that is why there is no end
to philosophy. Being near the top of the rabbit’s fur, it is perfectly fine for me to agree with some
philosophies, yet disagree with others.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Prompt 4
Megan O’Leary
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
4 August 2013
In the “Kant” chapter of Sophie’s World, the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, was
introduced. Kant believed there are decisive factors that determine how we perceive the world
around us. The red-tinted glasses Sophie tries on alter reality, just like human reasoning. In his
Theory of Ethics, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or
wrong, but the motives of the person who carries out the action. The red-tinted glasses experiment
and the Theory of Ethics contain a new way to perceive things, and I can apply these ideas to issues
in my own life.
Everything we perceive is affected by our ideas about understanding and reasoning. The way we
see things may not be how they really are. Our reality may be altered if we think like this, and it is
just like putting on red-tinted glasses; just because we see the world is red, does not mean it really is.
Kant explains that we will never get accurate information about things as they really are, because our
perception taints them. Kant called time and space our two forms of intuition, which is saying time
and space belong to the human mind. I agree with this, because I believe a person’s way of thinking
is a habit. Like Kant, I think the world is seen differently by each individual.
Everyday, people struggle in making decisions between what is right and what is wrong. Kant’s
Theory of Ethics provides a sufficient way to differentiate between right and wrong. To be morally
right, a person must act from duty or the good within them. Anything morally wrong comes from a
bad or negative place within. It is not the consequences that determine if a person’s doings are right
or wrong, but his or her motives. Thinking this way can help me with any inner conflicts that might
arise.
The questions of perspective in this chapter can help me by allowing me to see things in a new
light. Sometimes, I feel so certain of the outcome of events in my life only because I am used to
cause and effect of said events. My reasoning persuades me to skip to conclusions. Using the
methods and ideas in this chapter, I can take off my “tinted-glasses” and think philosophically. I can
use Kant’s Theory of Ethics in tough situations to evaluate my motives of a possible bad decision.
Sometimes people have to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Through Kant’s philosophies, this chapter mainly explained that by thinking differently and not
assuming the effects of things, my view of the world might be broadened. By using Kant’s ideas, I
am able to take my tinted glasses off; I must accept that I might never know things as they really are.
As for making decisions, I can better distinguish between right and wrong by stopping and asking
myself my intentions.
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
4 August 2013
Kant and the Red-Tinted Glasses
In the “Kant” chapter of Sophie’s World, the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, was
introduced. Kant believed there are decisive factors that determine how we perceive the world
around us. The red-tinted glasses Sophie tries on alter reality, just like human reasoning. In his
Theory of Ethics, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or
wrong, but the motives of the person who carries out the action. The red-tinted glasses experiment
and the Theory of Ethics contain a new way to perceive things, and I can apply these ideas to issues
in my own life.
Everything we perceive is affected by our ideas about understanding and reasoning. The way we
see things may not be how they really are. Our reality may be altered if we think like this, and it is
just like putting on red-tinted glasses; just because we see the world is red, does not mean it really is.
Kant explains that we will never get accurate information about things as they really are, because our
perception taints them. Kant called time and space our two forms of intuition, which is saying time
and space belong to the human mind. I agree with this, because I believe a person’s way of thinking
is a habit. Like Kant, I think the world is seen differently by each individual.
Everyday, people struggle in making decisions between what is right and what is wrong. Kant’s
Theory of Ethics provides a sufficient way to differentiate between right and wrong. To be morally
right, a person must act from duty or the good within them. Anything morally wrong comes from a
bad or negative place within. It is not the consequences that determine if a person’s doings are right
or wrong, but his or her motives. Thinking this way can help me with any inner conflicts that might
arise.
The questions of perspective in this chapter can help me by allowing me to see things in a new
light. Sometimes, I feel so certain of the outcome of events in my life only because I am used to
cause and effect of said events. My reasoning persuades me to skip to conclusions. Using the
methods and ideas in this chapter, I can take off my “tinted-glasses” and think philosophically. I can
use Kant’s Theory of Ethics in tough situations to evaluate my motives of a possible bad decision.
Sometimes people have to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Through Kant’s philosophies, this chapter mainly explained that by thinking differently and not
assuming the effects of things, my view of the world might be broadened. By using Kant’s ideas, I
am able to take my tinted glasses off; I must accept that I might never know things as they really are.
As for making decisions, I can better distinguish between right and wrong by stopping and asking
myself my intentions.
Prompt 3
Megan O’Leary
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
3 August 2013
Medieval philosophy focused on whether or not the teachings of Christ were compatible with
reason. St. Augustine saw a strong connection between Plato’s philosophies and the Christian
doctrine as St. Thomas Aquinas did with Aristotle. This connection is why Plato and Aristotle were
Christianized. When the teachings of Christ were applied to ancient philosophy, philosophers and the
Christian doctrine were united, a new interest in natural sciences arose, and people could arrive at
one truth.
Aquinas believed truth could be reached through our natural reason as well as through Christian
faith. He reasoned that we could reach God through either path. Alberto tells Sophie that Aquinas’s
point was that there need not be any conflict between a philosopher like Aristotle and the Christian
doctrine. Many times, our natural reasoning matches up with what we read in the Bible. Faith is a
sure way to find oneself if he or she ever gets lost in reasoning.
A new interest in natural sciences was sparked as Aristotle’s teachings became more well-known.
Alberto explains to Sophie how the Arabs had kept the Aristotelian tradition alive. Once translated
into Latin, Aristotle’s writings became known. By spreading to Europe, Aristotle’s ideas shed light
upon many people and helped open their minds up to Greek philosophy. This new interest boosted
the belief that Christ’s teachings could coexist with philosophy.
Aquinas wanted to prove that there is only one truth. The Bible and reasoning have such similar
aspects which strongly suggests they are based off of the same single truth. When explaining how
philosophy works hand in hand with religion, Alberto tells Sophie that “We can arrive successfully at
one aspect of the truth with the aid of reason and the evidence of our senses.” Incorporating the
Greek thinkers’ philosophies into their beliefs, the people in the Middle Ages were able to use
reasoning as well as follow the teachings of Christ.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were both significant figures in the Middle Ages and
cleared up much controversy. Before they had brought reason and religion together, Christians were
not open to view things as Plato and Aristotle did. Once philosophy was brought into Europe by the
Arabs, people saw that Greek philosophers ideas had, in fact, the same ideas as the Bible and Christ’s
teachings. When these teachings of Christ were applied to ancient philosophy, a general idea was
produced of a single truth, natural sciences were introduced, and the Christian doctrine and
philosophical teachings were united.
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
3 August 2013
Philosophy and the Teachings of Christ
Medieval philosophy focused on whether or not the teachings of Christ were compatible with
reason. St. Augustine saw a strong connection between Plato’s philosophies and the Christian
doctrine as St. Thomas Aquinas did with Aristotle. This connection is why Plato and Aristotle were
Christianized. When the teachings of Christ were applied to ancient philosophy, philosophers and the
Christian doctrine were united, a new interest in natural sciences arose, and people could arrive at
one truth.
Aquinas believed truth could be reached through our natural reason as well as through Christian
faith. He reasoned that we could reach God through either path. Alberto tells Sophie that Aquinas’s
point was that there need not be any conflict between a philosopher like Aristotle and the Christian
doctrine. Many times, our natural reasoning matches up with what we read in the Bible. Faith is a
sure way to find oneself if he or she ever gets lost in reasoning.
A new interest in natural sciences was sparked as Aristotle’s teachings became more well-known.
Alberto explains to Sophie how the Arabs had kept the Aristotelian tradition alive. Once translated
into Latin, Aristotle’s writings became known. By spreading to Europe, Aristotle’s ideas shed light
upon many people and helped open their minds up to Greek philosophy. This new interest boosted
the belief that Christ’s teachings could coexist with philosophy.
Aquinas wanted to prove that there is only one truth. The Bible and reasoning have such similar
aspects which strongly suggests they are based off of the same single truth. When explaining how
philosophy works hand in hand with religion, Alberto tells Sophie that “We can arrive successfully at
one aspect of the truth with the aid of reason and the evidence of our senses.” Incorporating the
Greek thinkers’ philosophies into their beliefs, the people in the Middle Ages were able to use
reasoning as well as follow the teachings of Christ.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were both significant figures in the Middle Ages and
cleared up much controversy. Before they had brought reason and religion together, Christians were
not open to view things as Plato and Aristotle did. Once philosophy was brought into Europe by the
Arabs, people saw that Greek philosophers ideas had, in fact, the same ideas as the Bible and Christ’s
teachings. When these teachings of Christ were applied to ancient philosophy, a general idea was
produced of a single truth, natural sciences were introduced, and the Christian doctrine and
philosophical teachings were united.
Prompt 2
Megan O’Leary
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
2 August 2013
Throughout history, women have been important figures and crucial to our world since the
beginning of time. Sadly, they were seen as having less potential than men, and in most cases, were
withheld from doing things men could do. One of these things, philosophizing, was and still is vital
to mankind. While reading Sophie’s World, I found it was obvious that men were the dominant
gender. Two of the most famous Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Plato, had opposing views on
women. I found myself frustrated with Aristotle’s opinions on gender, in agreement with Plato’s, and
disappointed with society’s.
I was somewhat appalled at Aristotle’s views on women. It is apparent that Aristotle saw women
as inferior to men when Alberto says Aristotle was more inclined to believe that women were
incomplete in some way. I was upset upon learning this; it made no sense to me that an otherwise
outstanding philosopher could be so wrong about this subject. In Aristotle’s eyes, a woman was an
“unfinished man.” I strongly disagree with Aristotle’s judgmental and sexist views.
In my opinion, Plato provided admirable answers to questions about gender. When writing about
Plato’s views on the matter, Alberto states, “Women, he asserted, have exactly the same powers of
reasoning as men, provided they get the same training and are exempt from child rearing and
housekeeping.” By this, Plato is saying he sees women as having equal potential as men, but they are
deprived of the proper education and training. I strongly agree with Plato’s words as they are
extremely accurate in my eyes. Mentally, there is nothing men can do that women cannot.
The fact that the vast majority of the authorities in the novel are men is disappointing but not
surprising. The male thinkers and philosophers mentioned in the novel are brilliant, but women could
be just as intelligent if given the appropriate instruction and practice. The majority of society had the
wrong idea about women in my opinion. Women were oppressed and discriminated against of
hundreds of years. This is disappointing, because if they had not been oppressed, women could have
produced vital philosophies and advanced mankind further with knowledge. Plato said that a state
that does not educate and train women is like a man who only trains his right arm, which reinforces
this idea. This statement is clearly saying it is a waste of fruitful knowledge to deprive women of the
same training as men.
For thousands of years, men have been the dominant gender of philosophers. Aristotle saw women
as incomplete and unable to think philosophically. Plato viewed women in a more positive light; he
saw their potential and believed they were equal with men. Sophie’s World consisted mainly of the
discussion of man’s philosophies, as women generally did not philosophize. This disappointed me
along with Aristotle’s opinions, however, I did agree with Plato.
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
2 August 2013
Views on Gender
beginning of time. Sadly, they were seen as having less potential than men, and in most cases, were
withheld from doing things men could do. One of these things, philosophizing, was and still is vital
to mankind. While reading Sophie’s World, I found it was obvious that men were the dominant
gender. Two of the most famous Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Plato, had opposing views on
women. I found myself frustrated with Aristotle’s opinions on gender, in agreement with Plato’s, and
disappointed with society’s.
I was somewhat appalled at Aristotle’s views on women. It is apparent that Aristotle saw women
as inferior to men when Alberto says Aristotle was more inclined to believe that women were
incomplete in some way. I was upset upon learning this; it made no sense to me that an otherwise
outstanding philosopher could be so wrong about this subject. In Aristotle’s eyes, a woman was an
“unfinished man.” I strongly disagree with Aristotle’s judgmental and sexist views.
In my opinion, Plato provided admirable answers to questions about gender. When writing about
Plato’s views on the matter, Alberto states, “Women, he asserted, have exactly the same powers of
reasoning as men, provided they get the same training and are exempt from child rearing and
housekeeping.” By this, Plato is saying he sees women as having equal potential as men, but they are
deprived of the proper education and training. I strongly agree with Plato’s words as they are
extremely accurate in my eyes. Mentally, there is nothing men can do that women cannot.
The fact that the vast majority of the authorities in the novel are men is disappointing but not
surprising. The male thinkers and philosophers mentioned in the novel are brilliant, but women could
be just as intelligent if given the appropriate instruction and practice. The majority of society had the
wrong idea about women in my opinion. Women were oppressed and discriminated against of
hundreds of years. This is disappointing, because if they had not been oppressed, women could have
produced vital philosophies and advanced mankind further with knowledge. Plato said that a state
that does not educate and train women is like a man who only trains his right arm, which reinforces
this idea. This statement is clearly saying it is a waste of fruitful knowledge to deprive women of the
same training as men.
For thousands of years, men have been the dominant gender of philosophers. Aristotle saw women
as incomplete and unable to think philosophically. Plato viewed women in a more positive light; he
saw their potential and believed they were equal with men. Sophie’s World consisted mainly of the
discussion of man’s philosophies, as women generally did not philosophize. This disappointed me
along with Aristotle’s opinions, however, I did agree with Plato.
Prompt 1
Megan O’Leary
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
1 August 2013
character Alberto Knox in the novel Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder. These two philosophical
questions can be answered in multiple ways as it depends on each responder’s personal opinion.
Although everyone may have different standpoints on the origin of the universe and who we are as
human beings, I think it is wise for me to contemplate various theories, consider the possible flaws of
each, and determine how they tie together as I decide on the ones I agree with most.
As Sophie pondered over Alberto’s question “Who are you?”, so did I. Like Sophie, I thought
about how a person can define him or herself. As a human being, I believe I am unique and cannot be
defined by just a first and last name. I have my own qualities, characteristics, and views on the world.
I do not believe I am simply a collection of atoms, but something more spiritual. I think each
individual was put on Earth for a reason, and as we live life we discover exactly who we are along
the way.
In my opinion, the second question discussed in the novel, “Where does the world come from?”,
is much more difficult to answer. Not even the smartest of scientists can give a sure answer to this
question. Sophie claims either the universe always was, or something had to have come from
nothing. I agree with this, although I do believe God had a part in it. It is challenging to imagine
either scenario, because I usually immediately dismiss thoughts as crazy and unfathomable as those.
Referring to the idea that something can come from nothing, Alberto Knox states, “This idea was not
so widespread among the Greeks. For some reason or another, they assumed that ‘something’ had
always existed.” I disagree with the Greeks in this way, because it is easier for me to believe
something came from nothing rather than a timeline with no beginning.
Thinking about who I am and how the world came to be exercises my inner philosopher and
makes me look deeper into things I had not bothered thinking about before. The two philosophical
questions require the same type of thinking. They stir up deep thoughts and cause one to concern him
or herself with what man is and where the world came from. In this way, the questions tie together.
Alberto Knox says each individual has to come up with his or her own answer to questions like this,
which is how philosophy works. I love this way of thinking because it opens a new mindset on life
and the world we live in.
There are infinitely many possible answers to “Who are you?” and “Where does the world come
from?”. As an individual, I am able to decide for myself how to think and what to believe. After
much consideration and contemplation, I place my beliefs in the fact that I am a spiritual being put
into existence for a reason and have the ability to philosophize. As for my theory on the origin of the
universe, I believe there was a starting point when “something” came from “nothing”.
Mrs. Wilhelmus
AP English Language
1 August 2013
Two Philosophical Questions
“Who are you?” and “Where does the world come from?” are two deep questions raised by the
character Alberto Knox in the novel Sophie’s World by Jostein Gaarder. These two philosophical
questions can be answered in multiple ways as it depends on each responder’s personal opinion.
Although everyone may have different standpoints on the origin of the universe and who we are as
human beings, I think it is wise for me to contemplate various theories, consider the possible flaws of
each, and determine how they tie together as I decide on the ones I agree with most.
As Sophie pondered over Alberto’s question “Who are you?”, so did I. Like Sophie, I thought
about how a person can define him or herself. As a human being, I believe I am unique and cannot be
defined by just a first and last name. I have my own qualities, characteristics, and views on the world.
I do not believe I am simply a collection of atoms, but something more spiritual. I think each
individual was put on Earth for a reason, and as we live life we discover exactly who we are along
the way.
In my opinion, the second question discussed in the novel, “Where does the world come from?”,
is much more difficult to answer. Not even the smartest of scientists can give a sure answer to this
question. Sophie claims either the universe always was, or something had to have come from
nothing. I agree with this, although I do believe God had a part in it. It is challenging to imagine
either scenario, because I usually immediately dismiss thoughts as crazy and unfathomable as those.
Referring to the idea that something can come from nothing, Alberto Knox states, “This idea was not
so widespread among the Greeks. For some reason or another, they assumed that ‘something’ had
always existed.” I disagree with the Greeks in this way, because it is easier for me to believe
something came from nothing rather than a timeline with no beginning.
Thinking about who I am and how the world came to be exercises my inner philosopher and
makes me look deeper into things I had not bothered thinking about before. The two philosophical
questions require the same type of thinking. They stir up deep thoughts and cause one to concern him
or herself with what man is and where the world came from. In this way, the questions tie together.
Alberto Knox says each individual has to come up with his or her own answer to questions like this,
which is how philosophy works. I love this way of thinking because it opens a new mindset on life
and the world we live in.
There are infinitely many possible answers to “Who are you?” and “Where does the world come
from?”. As an individual, I am able to decide for myself how to think and what to believe. After
much consideration and contemplation, I place my beliefs in the fact that I am a spiritual being put
into existence for a reason and have the ability to philosophize. As for my theory on the origin of the
universe, I believe there was a starting point when “something” came from “nothing”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)