AP Philosophy Exam?

It is an immense calamity that a philosophy class is not given, nor is there an AP Philosophy exam, or an SAT II philosophy exam. Why is this? Personally, I have no explanation for the reason why this is so. A possible explanation is the difficulty of the subject matter, and that allowing this class to be taken in high school would show an increase in the suicide rate. However, there is an AP Psychology test, which is while different subject matter, a similar type of soft science as philosophy (awkward wording, I’m sorry, I’m working on it). The

It is possible that philosophy as a whole does not work well on a standardized test. Teaching anyone something beyond elementary philosophy would be very difficult to do in a year, and philosophy is so vast that it cannot possibly be learned in one year to the depth that AP United States history is learned. A course in the history of philosophy is more practical, but even that would take years to be learned.

So if it is not possible to teach the subject in the allotted time, is it possible to teach the subject in terms of complexity. Could the average level 9/AP high school student thrive in a detailed philosophy class? I believe that it is very possible, but it takes dedication. A philosophy class would be structured as a class of small quizzes to ensure the students understand the material, and with a lot of writing. Philosophy is a discipline that requires extensive writing to be able to express all the ideas it desires. Few philosophers are concise.

I suppose that it is possible to teach an AP ancient philosophy class. By ancient, I mean Thales to Augustine. This may include Ancient Eastern philosophy (I do not like calling it ‘Eastern’, but the idea is known to most. It is possible that all of Ancient philosophy, east and west, could be learned in a year. The structure for the West would be, The Hebrew Bible, the Sophists, Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Cynics, Skeptics, Epicureans, Cicero, Jesus, Plotinus, Augustine, and I am undecided about Boethius. Ambrose and Jerome may be covered, as with the Pirkei Avot. For the East, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism would be covered. Zoroastrianism may be covered in the West, and Jainism and Shintoism could also be covered. This is a fair amount of work for an AP class.

If there is an ancient philosophy class, there probably should also be an AP Medieval and Modern Philosophy Class. However, the latter may be too much material to be covered in a year, if it is to be assumed that it begins with Bacon, Descartes, or the Humanists. Well, I guess when compared with ancient philosophy it is not too much more, if philosophy ends at Quine, or the post-moderns.

For medieval philosophy, it would be from Muhammed to Khaldun or so. There are fewer philosophers covered for this time period when compared to Modern Philosophy. Possibly starting modern at Spinoza, and ending the Medieval exam at Pascal, but it would be beyond absurd to call Pascal, or all those before him (Hobbes, Descartes, Erasmus, Bacon) medieval philosophers. However, there is a wealth of medieval philosophy to be taught and learned in high school.

A problem may arise in the fact that I am not sure that students would want to take Medieval Philosophy, or even Modern or Ancient philosophy for that matter! Regardless, the option should at least be open to budding philosophers who want to show that if they are going to major in philosophy, they at least took the class and did well in high school. I say we petition the AP board to create a philosophy test. They are going to begin giving a Chinese AP test, there ought to be a philosophy one too.

Another Attempt at Defining Philosophy

I would like to address the definition of philosophy in more depth. This is an ongoing process, and this is not means the first nor last attempt to correctly define this complex entity.

Etymologically, it is the love of wisdom; Φιλοσοφία. Yet how does this relate to the actual definition in 2006? My position is that philosophy is a branch of study, consisting of ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics and logic. This criterion may require some expansion or may need to be decreased, but for now I believe that it is correct, yet I may be wrong.

Leaving the definition of philosophy at the love of wisdom is fundamentally flawed because wisdom is an incredibly complex term and requires a definition. Wisdom is not a simple term and it is open for interpretation. To call something the love of apples is much simpler to grasp than the love of wisdom.

So philosophy is not the love is wisdom but a collective study of intellectual subjects that philosophers have studied. The idea of who is a philosopher has changed over time, and now we have called people “philosophers of x.” There are philosophers of mathematics, philosophers of science, philosophers of art, et cetera. This clearly shows a difference in the way that the word philosophy is taken.

Philosophy has, for some unfortunate reason, been taken as a personal credo on a given subject. One may say, “My philosophy of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” However, this is not the same as saying that “My love of wisdom of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price”, or to say, “My collective study of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, aesthetics and ethics of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” We would not say that, so there is a difference between the terms, ‘philosophy of’ and ‘philosophy.’ (If I have erred in the punctuation of that last paragraph, please inform me, respectfully.)

Where is the line to be drawn between philosophy of and philosophy? It is my belief that to say that one has a philosophy of something is to misuse the term ‘philosophy’, but it is so entrenched in our vocabularies that it cannot easily be removed. Here is where the line must be drawn. Philosophy as a noun is a collective branch of study. Philosophy of x shall be defined as the personal belief system with respect to x. When philosophizes, one is critically thinking about matters pertaining to ethics, metaphysics, etc. A philosopher, is one whose profession, in some capacity, deals with studying and or teaching and writing about philosophical matters. Leaving philosophy at the love of wisdom is to assign philosophy the primitive definition it shed at the death of Aristotle some 2300 years ago.


This has been another attempt at narrowing down the definition of philosophy. I know I have not wholly succeeded, but I have worked toward a better definition. Read my first post, which is a work in progress essay, as are almost all my posts, works in progress, with the exception of the Aurelius paper, the Riemann paper, the Kafka essay, and I believe that is it. I do not claim to have a perfect definition but the point is "the love of wisdom" is insufficient.

Machiavellian Ideals Explored

I would like to quickly address the idea of Machiavelli that ideals do not exist in the physical world; they only exist in the world of the mind, if we are to use Plato’s world of forms. This de-idealization of the physical world was critical for philosophy.

To address this notion, as in all philosophical endeavors, it is first imperative to define terms. I have hitherto defined “not exist in the physical world” so that leaves “ideals” to be defined. By an ideal I believe Machiavelli meant a perfect notion, on something that can be universally perfect. Kant took this notion to heart (it is not guaranteed but probable that Kant read Machiavelli) when he said that “happiness is not an ideal of reason but of imagination.” Machiavelli would say that happiness cannot exist because it is something perfect and infallible. It does not appear that he extended this notion to god, but if he did he did not write it explicitly due to fear of persecution or other harmful events that would befall him were he to abnegate the existence of god.

I would like to question Machiavelli to what extent he believes that ideals are not existent. If we take the utilitarian definition of happiness, (the best possible ratio of pain to pleasure) then it would appear that this would contradict Machiavelli on its nonexistence. I believe Machiavelli viewed ideals as limits or asymptotes, that cannot be reached, or attained because they do not exist, but he did not draw a line anywhere else. If I cannot be happy, can I be in perpetual good spirits, thoroughly appreciate life, be grateful for my life and be an ardent optimist? Machiavelli may claim that one cannot be in a “good mood” all the time, and that there has to be something wrong, even if it is say a wart on a toe; it is still an imperfection that would prevent perfect happiness. I believe that Machiavelli knew that perfect ideals do not exist, but his flaw was that he settled for a middle of the way solution to everything. He was possibly the greatest realist of all time, but I believe that this type of realism does not lead to progress. Some extreme liberals may claim that progress is a façade and humans are not getting anywhere, but I believe that ideals are beneficial and exist in the mental world. However, they do not exist in the physical world; but that should not prevent us from trying to get close to them. Ending war is impossible; but why not try to decrease the amount of war? I think that idealist thinkers, such as me to an extent, can be beneficial to society because they present a goal for progress. While ideals are almost never accomplished in the physical world, if one can hold them as possibilities in the mental world and try to implement them in the physical world by trying to make the world fit in with the ideals while knowing that it is a futile task to have the ideal completely achieved, but 80 percent success is still a massive achievement (I apologize for the run on there). I think that there is a limit to the ideals in the world physical world, but not attempting to strive even a small amount toward those ideals is to miss the point of human progress.

Some Thoughts on Ethics

These are some miscellaneous thoughts on ethics roughtly organized. It is not one of my best posts, but I felt like making a post on philosophy.

Ethics is defined as the science of determining right from wrong. It has been studied from the time of Aristotle up to the present day and shows no signs of slowing down. I would like to outline some of my own thought concerning this branch of philosophy.

My position here is that there are absolutes in morality; something is right or it is wrong. There is a distinction whether something is morally right or morally wrong. It is exceedingly difficult to argue because the contemporary breed of ethics is different from many other ethical systems in history. My assertion is that there are absolutes of rights and wrong, and in every situation of multiple options there is one that is more moral and ought to be done, and in every action it is either moral or immoral. I also believe that there is this idea of purity of ethics, and under the categorical imperative (a major part of my thesis so if you are not fond if this be ready for something you will take issue with), and that no single religious ethic is correct. There is this ideal of an ethic that does have its roots in the Jewish ethic, but it is still different, and the Jewish ethic is not sufficient for all of western ethics.

In a somewhat organized essay on my miscellaneous thoughts on ethics, the discussion shall begin on the idea of a perfect ethic. My belief is that there is an underlying code of morality that ought to be adhered to. I believe that this is a completely secular ethic, and an ethic without a sense of punishment and reward. If an ethic can be the ultimate law, if something is immoral or unethical it should not be done, that would be the pinnacle of a law code. Imagine a code of laws that was adhered to without, any sort of punishment? An ethic like this could work in a few ways. One is that if one committed an unethical act, his community of people would look down on him so much that he would feel so terrible as to not commit another act like that. Another would be his own internal feelings would compel him to never do anything such as that again. A third would be an acceptance of an ethic that would make people deem unethical acts pointless, and have no desire to commit them.

As Professor Timothy B. Shutt in his lecture series Foundations of Western Thought discusses the fact that the Jewish ethic (I use Hebrew, Jewish, Hebraic interchangeably) is the foundation for our contemporary western ethic. It is marked by the ethics of the Ten Commandments, and while these are not originally Hebrew but taken from previous ideas such as the Code of Hammurabi. Regardless, the western ethic is nothing without the Hebraic ethic.

But what does this ethic look like? It is best to begin with some server ethical taboos. First of all, any killing, and stealing would be immediately outlawed. This follows the same basic ideal of taking what is not yours; in terms of property and livelihood. Along this line forcing someone to do a relatively extreme act against their will would be under the same jurisdiction. For example, no one wants to pay taxes, yet they must be done in order to ensure a secure state. However, one cannot force another to perform a lascivious act without consent.

So if the first aspect of this ethic is the right to not have someone else take something from you, or to do something to you within reason, the second aspect is the idea of self protection. For example, victimless crimes are crimes. Under this ethic, suicide would be illegal, but I doubt that there would be any great need for suicide. Granted, some would argue (and this is a field that I have little knowledge of) that depression and suicidal thoughts are due to a chemical imbalance, and not a product of the society and immediate society that one lives in. This is a good transition to another point, the idea of drug use. While Muslim heaven is a land of excessive wine, my ethical utopia would be a sober place. Drug use is not beneficial to mankind. However, it can be used to get one back to equilibrium, i.e. if they have a cold or are depressed medicines can be utilized to assist the person. However, I treat drugs as an entity harmful to the body and to the mind; therefore it is a “victimless crime.” If suicide is outlawed then drugs use ought to be outlawed. Some may not see what one has to do with the other, but to me it is crystal clear.

So two of the foundations of moral law hitherto discussed are the idea of victimless crimes being crimes and anything that may be deemed a victimless crime is unethical, and the right to one’s property in term of one’s own body and time, and one’s material property e.g. one’s baseball card collection. This is where the ethic gets tricky. The role of relating to the less fortunate. If you cannot hurt yourself, and you have the right to yourself, why should you be compelled to help others. This may be under the realm of situational ethics, but in any sort of formulation of an ethic it cannot be ignored if we are making generalizations. I tend to adhere to a Deontological ethical point of view. While this is contradictory to some of what I have hitherto stated, it appears that with respect to others, deontology is the route to go.

Since I cannot do anything else with the Deontological ethic right now, I would like to reinforce some of the other side of ethics. The secular ethic that I am talking about is essentially being ethical for ethic’s sake. In the contemporary world, only fear can keep people behaving ethically. Fear of the law, and/or fear of religion. Regardless, the idea is there is a force of some kind preventing me from acting unethically or immorally. Granted the law is not perfect, but assume it is for just this exercise. First to address the religious side of this. If it is religion preventing one from acting unethically, what happens when one loses faith with their religion, or meets someone of a different religion with a different ethic? Religion teaches that their respective doctrine is the truth, and many teach that others are faulty and “thou shalt not kill because I, the lord your God, commandeth it.” Well why does God need to tell me that? Shouldn’t murder be wrong even if God didn’t command it? I say yes, hence the secular ethic and the categorical imperative.

The religious ethic is based on a doctrine and an absolute truth derived from a transcendent being; my ethic is derived from the absolute truths of human nature and interaction. I find it more likely that human nature exists than God exists.


My secular ethic will not save humanity, or is necessarily practical. However, I believe that a secular ethic, and if we can convince people to be ethical for ethic’s sake, that is ideal. This ethic does not particular to an economic theory, but it does allow for capitalism and that horrible idea that is socialism. The ethic is a reality in this secular world. However, over half the world believes in some kind of God, so this ethic is not too practical for this generation or at least three subsequent generations. Yet I believe that a secular ethic is the way to go, and it would be an improvement for humanity.


This has been some rough thoughts on ethics. Do not criticize the lack of organization or the ideas not presented; criticize the ideas presented. I have not said all that I want to say but I feel it is time to make a post, and I am currently writing a piece on Jewish history that I would like to work on. Ethics is not a subject I will drop, but I believe that I have presented ideas worth sharing.

On Ethan Frome

These are some remarks on Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. I do not care if you as the reader hates it; on this I encourage comments on the novel.

And you can stop sighing now, it will be OK, Frome was not that bad.

As one knows, I feel compelled to write on and about most if not everything I read, and if it is a classic piece of literature or philosophy or something that moves me. I would like to make some general remarks about Ethan Frome, by Edith Wharton.

While I am somewhat of a literary elitist, I found Ethan Frome to be quite an interesting novel. The plot is original and I took some comfort in Wharton’s style. I am well aware that this is not the typical Wharton novel, yet nonetheless it was interesting. In terms of the plot, my main critique of the work is the excessive amount of characters for the short text. The text is only about 120 pages or so, if that, in the standard paperback book. The plethora of characters was superfluous in such a short work, if Wharton had extended the text, and given more time to discuss in more detail episodes of the characters it would have been more acceptable. For example, in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, which I am planning on resuming reading quote soon, has quite the lot of characters, but he incorporates them into each part much better than Wharton does. Each character does not serve as specific a purpose in Ethan Frome. All of the characters mentioned (Harmon Gow is debatable) are used and are important to the story.

To continue this idea, it is important to bring up the entity of drama. In many plays there are a large cast of characters for a text that takes about the same amount of time to read as Ethan Frome. In the last play of Edward de Vere, usually referred to as “William Shakespeare”, that I read, Twelfth Night, there are approximately ten characters or so who play a specific purpose. Possible the only insignificant characters are Curio, and the second officer who appears only once. Yet to have one officer called to break up a fight of three people is slightly unrealistic, so two fits better. Yet the second officer has only one line and drifts off into obscurity after his brief appearance. Yet the dynamic of the play would greatly change were it not for all of the characters; no character can be spared besides the ones mentioned. However, drama a very different animal than the novel, but I deemed it worthy of an example.

To elaborate on the concluding remarks on Ethan Frome this play was clearly a comedy. I agree with the self-proclaimed honorary and esteemed Mr. McEachan (don’t crucify me if I misspelled that) that Wharton wrote it as a tragedy but read it ten years later and realized that she had in actuality written a comedy. Ethan Frome will not go down as one of the premier classics of American literature, but I believe it is at least in the top 75 if not the top 50 of the greatest American novels (for the record I would love to compose that list). I must say that I agree with critics in the lack of a theme of the novel. There is no concrete theme, and I believe that Wharton may have written it as an outpouring of the pent up anger and pain of her troubled personal life. Regardless, it is high literature in terms of plot depth, and there are themes, symbols and motifs, and it can be read critically, but the lack of a theme and the overall brevity of the work downgrade it. In conclusion, I am glad that I read the novel, even if it is not Wharton’s best work.

Note these are only some concluding remarks on Ethan Frome; expect more criticism and analysis to come.