Aggression

Aggression is built into most of the animal population. This includes the human population where aggression is programmed into our nature. We talked in class about whether humans are innately aggressive in nature and I agree that while aggression is in our nature it is not the nature of humans. We have aggression to help with competition and use it as a reason to actually try and do better. Aggression fuels competition, maybe not as much today but definitely back in our more primitive times it was how our ancestors survived.

Today while aggression does not rule our everyday lives it does help in the capitalistic society as it helps to fuel the competitive nature of business as our country has been set up. Not every human shows aggressive tendencies and many are completely passive. This is neither a good or bad thing it just helps us to need one another. If we were all aggressive by nature then we would either not have gotten this far with technology or we would have used technology in a way that destroyed us all. Overall aggression is a useful tool in many environments but a lack of aggressiveness means nothing as to the quality of that human therefore aggression is not the nature to describe human nature.

Evolution

Humans are beings of nature. After we are born how much we change our features through medicines, plastic surgery, wheelchairs, crutches etc. we are still created through the combination of the male and female DNA. Every time that a sperm meets and egg there is variation that occurs and makes that new life special. We all have unique combinations of DNA and are all vessels through which new traits can arise. No we do not allow the weak to die as they would in a less technological society. We have people with traits that would be undesirable in the 'wild' but we can still overcome it. Maybe this is making us more susceptible than were we to allow nature to kill off people with traits that are not useful in traditional sense but we have brought ourselves up on this pedestal so as long as we have the technology we will try and save every life we can.

Evolution still happens whenever there is an exchange of genetic material to create a new life. Until we are able to create life without the help of organic genetic material we will be subject to evolution. It may be different from Darwin's perspective of evolution but it is still happening. Evolution is a very slow process and many suggest we are drawing from the same pool of genes as our ancestors were, dating back to just before the agricultural revolution.

Stereotypes

If our biology was what influenced our characteristics, whether we are meek or out spoken, strong, timid and other gender associated traits, then every girl would be the stereotypical female and every guy the stereotypical manly man. More and more we are seeing both genders breaking from these roles and many men are nurses, secretaries and teachers and many women are truck drivers, high up business executives and construction workers.  This leads me to believe that whether or not our biology originally had a say in these traits they are more a culturally acquired taste.

Anyone who says that a woman needs to get in the kitchen because that is what she was born to do is outrageously mistaken. The only reason that gender roles are even around is because as we look around the world our brains comprehend it by putting different people into categories. This is how prejudice, racism and sexism starts. We see a couple women who are good at taking care of children so we assign women that quality. We see a young black man stealing and assume they are all trouble makers. We see a couple Mexicans gardening and say that that is all that Mexicans can do. We are not biologically programed to fit into stereotypes, we are socialized to and this causes the stereotypes to persist.

Gender Roles

We talked about the gender roles and whether they are generated buy nature or nurture. The gender roles as we see them are specific to western industrial cultures. There are native cultures that have changed little since their creation. They have gender roles that are switched compared to our ideas of gender roles. This suggests that nurture is more the reason for effeminate and masculine traits. The interesting thing about the other cultures that have switched roles is that the men of the culture are still the dominate sex.

Another curious case about gender roles in our culture are the effeminate guys and masculine girls. While these traits are associated with the gay community there are effeminate guys and masculine girls who do not identify as being attracted to the same sex. No matter what biological 'inclinations' we have towards each set of traits there are many cases where the traits are seen in the 'wrong' sex.

Evolution

Darwin said that evolution, is the change of features and adaptions in creatures based on a progression  and in a way that betters the creature to it's environment. A key component is not that evolution creates the best of the ultimate creature but that it makes better creatures than the one before and if this creature is the best adapted and nothing changes in it's environment then evolution will pause. Man is creating creatures that have to evolve in a way that is beneficial in one way and not so much in another. There is a species of elephant that has evolved to have a recessive gene for tusklessness. The reason behind this is that poachers will not kill an elephant that has no tusks, they are not worth anything. This is a good defense against poachers yet is not a good in the terms of the fitness of an elephant. Tusks are a sign of strength to potential mates and are used in fighting other elephants for food, territory etc. Is this really an evolutionary trait if it is brought on by something not in their natural environment? I would say yes because whether or not humans should be in the African jungles and shooting elephants, they are, and if the elephants can find a way of defense,then good for them. Is this however something we as humans, should allow  to happen? Should we let our power hunger and want for dominance destroy the rest of the Earth, no. As much as we choose to ignore that we are cut from the same cloth as all living things, it is not something we will get rid of anytime soon.

Changes

We talk about nature and the world we live in as two separate things. Quotes like, "I'm going to go bond with nature" or "Let's take a trip to the wilderness this weekend". The truth however is that there are few areas of the world where man has not been and these areas are the few that are still completely wild. Counting out of course areas that man cannot go because of biological and technological restraints everything is effected by man. You go in a walk in your back yard and may appear to be surrounded by the forest but can hear cars rolling by on the nearby highway. Even reserved areas where man is not allowed to go, it has only retained it's original habitat due to the interference from man.

If we think about the number of species we have captured, domesticated or simply tried to preserve in captivity, this number exceeds imagination. All of these creatures have been directly affected by man, but what about the indirect effects we have. We emit pollutants and allow pounds of debris to fall into streams and rivers that lead to the ocean. This then leads to changes among species that are irreversible. My question from these observation is, How has man changed the process of evolution and can mutations that are for the better yet caused by our interventions still be considered Darwin's evolution.

Survival

Survival of the fittest. Interesting concept, the fittest survive. Not the one who is able to outsmart the system, the one who is the nicest, the one who is the best. The fittest. What is fittest really though? Nowadays it is the person who can live the longest, have the most money and be able to get whatever they want. This is the fittest person especially in a capitalist society where the goal is to get all the money. Then we look towards nature. The fittest is the creature who can hunt and forage and usually work with their pack, unless we are talking about lone creatures. This is where we started out. As hunters and foragers who relied on each other to survive. We still rely on each other and some still hunt and forage, but the number who produce and the number who consume are drastically different. Hardly anyone is self sufficient or even sufficient within their community. We have tried and tried to separate ourselves from nature but that's not the way to go. Nature can teach u so much yet we have decided to use and abuse it. Without a full knowledge we have taken species, changed landscapes and altered habitats. Why have we not embraced that side of ourselves and learned from them?

Many cultures worship spirits that have to do with nature. The water god, the god of fertility and the god of death. These societies are seen as primitive yet they are probably better off. They do not have constant communication with the world or running water or any luxuries that we have yet they are more in touch with each other and know how to fend for themselves. Who is really better in this situation? If tomorrow all of the technology was gone and we all had to fend for ourselves and live off of the land like we once did who would survive?

We are free, aren't we?

So, Sartre focused on freedom. What would he say on political freedom? I am not talking about the right to say what you want or the right to vote I am saying freedom from the political. We allow politics to govern our lives which is all fine and dandy if your rich white and powerful. Yes women and blacks can vote and we all have due process under the law, technically. Remember learning about Jim Crowe laws? They were the laws that didn't SAY you cannot vote if your black but they said you need to be able to read and we will test you before you can vote. These tests were run by white males, usually who didn't want blacks to vote. The white male who wanted to vote would read, see dick run while the black male would read, the United States Constitution. Thats fair isn't it? Today these laws aren't there however there are people who think this way. There are stereotypes and misconceptions and while people will not say they are racist, they secretly are. They walk on the other side of the road to avoid a group of black teenagers. What would Sartre say about this?

I know that everyday people are not the government so when they discriminate, its not that bad. Unfortunately everyday people make up the establishment. They are law enforcers, lawyers, doctors and teachers. These people give preference to those who are like themselves. This is where society has gone wrong. While Officer Bob down the street isn't part of  the KKK he sees a young black male walk into a convenience store with a hoodie and his hand in his pocket and he unconsciously puts his hand closer to his radio or gun until the boy leaves. He gives this same young man a speeding ticket for going over the speed limit by 5 miles when he lets his white counterpart speed by. Why would he do this? He sees the white male and assumes hes speeding to go to class or work. He sees the black male and sees a trouble maker. These unfortunate results of our country and it's systems makes some of us more free than others. Some groups can get away with crimes while others cannot. The issue of laws and making some thing illegal is not an infringement of our freedom. Special treatment of some and the preferences law makers make and the enforcers act upon are what is the issue.

Responsibility

How much of our lives, existence and mental state are we responsible for? Sartre says that all of our emotions and every aspect of our lives are made by choice. This means there are no outside forces. As a sociology major I cannot accept this. Everything we do is sculpted by our surroundings. Even the most personal decisions can be made on a personal level but overall some aspects of society can deeply decide whether or not you go through with a choice such as suicide. As for choosing our mental state, things can make us sad without our permission. People can make us mad without us wanting to be mad. Then in terms of our lives, we can choose what we want to do with our lives, this is always a limited choice however due to social stratification, status and various labels and discrimination's our culture puts on different people. Then once we get over those hurdles, no one will choose to be poor. No one wants to choose to be poor no one wants to live paycheck to paycheck. So to say that we are in control of our lives and choose to do everything and everything that we feel is a large fallacy. Everyone starts with a high goal but sometimes without any fault of their own they are pushed back and forced to settle on a less than ideal life that they never wanted.

The nature of a nature

In class we said that the need to choose a nature is a nature. From this my question is is there anything that is not a nature? and what is a nature? Is a nature just something you do or is it something that all of humanity does. If it is something all of humanity does then that makes sense. Every civilization since the we evolved with the ability to communicate with one another has tried to define themselves. This means that every culture has other finer subgroups of natures but these are not natures in the sense we talk about in class. Therefore there are many things that are not natures. Any culture specific trait or even more specific, personal trait, is not a nature. The only things to be considered natures would be the things that are significant to every human being. Something that regardless of culture, race or ethnicity everyone does.

We are Condemned

Condemned, has such a negative connotation. Yet it seems to be the only appropriate term for Sartre's radical freedom. We have no choice, we are destined to always be free. This the context behind Sartre's 'condemned' freedom. The negative connotation is simply a coincidence. Condemned is not a bad thing always. We can be condemned not to lie, to be nice, not to steal. These are not usual ways of using condemned but they are still correct.

Back to freedom, the main question is what does it mean to be free? Everyone will answer differently. To some people freedom is the ability to speak, to say their mind. To some people freedom is being able to go shopping without fear of attack or ambush. To me, freedom is voting, being able to say and dress in what I want. I know that my choices are not all my own, they are shaped by many things in my environment but but my environment overall is not forced into existence. That is what is free to me.

Touchy Subjects

Freedom is a touchy subject. As Americans we think everyone should have freedom and with freedom you can choose your government. We think that everyone should choose democracy because democracy is the government of the free. Some people do not agree. They like their monarch, their parliament etc. Many would rather these kinds of government because they require less input from the citizens and the government is trusted to make the hard decisions. I'm not positive on the set ups of these other governmental setups but at least on the surface they designate more power to the government than the civilian population. Most of these set ups include free people but Americans see them as not the best kind of free since they give over any power.

This is why freedom is a touchy subject. Everyone sees it different. Sartre saw it as the radical freedom where you are free to do whatever you want. Someone who has never been able to make a choice for themselves may see freedom as being able to choose what to eat and what to wear. Everyone's perceptions are skewed by their backgrounds and their culture so discussing freedom can be difficult. There are so many varying degrees of freedom.

Perfection

If God is perfection, why would he create a creature that is imperfect? We all have faults, we all do something wrong. Why do we have this capacity if we are then punished for all of eternity? It just doesn't make sense. I have never been a die hard religious person but I have never been opposed to the thought of God. Maybe it is just me but there are a few thing that I could never wrap my head around. One was why we were created with the capacity to sin.

Many say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. okay, so when I hurt myself or someone does me wrong I will become a better person or the skin that regrows will be better than the skin before I cut my finger. What about killing? Why can we plan with malicious intent to harm someone else? God is all good, all knowing, all powerful. Why would he create a creature that can go against the very essence of what he is? We talked about this in class and many die hard believers say do not question God he know what ha is doing. Looking around this world it is hard to believe that, yet some part of me wants to.

There are three 'western' religions that are based on the same idea. The are all based on the idea of doing good in this life on Earth to get to a better one with Him. They have the same major prophets and the same holy land. This would make sense if they originated far away from each other and had different prophets/saints. Are people so stuck up that they cannot even share a religion? Even within religions there is dissent and new sections are formed.

The reason behind these separations has to be rooted in the fundamentals of human nature. Why else would three different religions with the same ideals form around the same time, with similar prophets, in the same area of the world. This is the same idea why people who have the same ideas tend to still disagree and argue. Everyone has an idea on what should happen, these ideas are so holistic that they usually include only two or so umbrella ideas that hold essentially the two viewpoints. Underneath these two umbrellas however you find people who think that to find world peace, we need to ban all guns and then those who wish it but don't know how it could happen. These two subgroups, even though they want the same end result, will argue and disagree. This forms different groups with barely any differences in their overall views but only in their fundamentals. Whether or not these divides are silly, they happen all the time. Two people can have the same overall view but differ in their ideas on how something should be executed. This can ruin a relationship. I think this makes these divides rather silly.

Stupidity

A bride is supposed to be a virgin. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. You are condemned for lust, envy, gluttony, greed, anger and laziness (sloth). Every one of these is broken in someplace, within those countries that practice Christianity, everyday. Even still, there are many seemingly outdated beliefs that are held onto. Some people take the bible as the end all be all decider on anything. Unfortunately the bible was written thousands of years ago and can no longer be taken word for word. We have changed a lot since the bible was written and as a consequence need to change or amend some of the decrees in it. One such decree that is outdated is that to lay with another man as you lay with a woman then that is a sin. 

Homosexuality is an element of nature. It happens with dolphins, cows and many other species. Homophobia only happens in one.  We have come a long way since the bible was written in terms of rights for minority groups as well as women. Why can't we disregard the stigma against homosexuals? Brides having to be virgins and not doing anything on Sundays were traditions that while sometimes still upheld, have been passed over in most of society. We have become such a different society from when the bible is written if we kept all of the bible as the law of the land we might as well never had given rights to those who were different.

Patriotism, part 4

Another part of patriotism is the light in which your country is painted. If the media and all of the news and everything uses words and phrases that make your country look like the land of opportunity and this great place that helps everyone who is worse off then you will see that too. Most of the masses find it difficult to ask questions about what the 'higher ups' say. They take in information without saying, that's not right or wait what did he say? They take it at face value which is what every country wants because otherwise they will have to actually live up to the expectations.

Patriotism, part 3

Is being patriotic thinking that your country is better?

Sometimes it can be but like most things you have to look at the individual. I may have nothing against the English but I would pick to cheer for America over England in the Olympics. This goes back to the faithfulness based on where you were born. Is this really an irrational way to think of it though? I am going to prefer my siblings or my neighbor over a complete stranger. My best friend means more to me than that girl who sits next to me in that class. We prefer what we know. This is nature, this is pure biology left over from when we were still evolving into what we are today. When you start making assumptions about other places such as those commies are awful, I hear they don't even bleed then patriotism is bad. A simple preference to your country is not harmful, it is equivalent to supporting the Red Sox over the Yankees.

Patriotism, part 2

How can someone be patriotic to a country which is obviously making mistakes? Some people believe in loyalty. I will stand by you even in your darkest hour. They feel this way about their country too. However if a friend is making a big mistake do you not tell them? No you do tell them, you tell them straight to their face and if they have any respect for you or any common sense they will listen to you. Why is it then that during times of turmoil no one sees it necessary to argue with a country?

We like to assume that those who are in power know something more than us. That even though it seems like they are doing the wrong thing they know something you don't and everything will turn out right. This is common even on small scale events such as talking to a supervisor. If your supervisor says something and you try to question it, if the supervisor thinks they are right they will dismiss your opinion. Whether or not you know you are right you are more likely to just accept what they said even if you know it is wrong. We have faith that there is a reason someone is in charge instead of ourselves so that we are able to simple accept and move on.

Patriotism, part 1

Patriotism, I believe, is a form of an instinct. If your country is in danger then by extension you are in danger. Whether or not you chose to live in that country, you are connected to it because it's safety is connected to your safety. Why then must you be patriotic to be worried for your countries well being. Someone who stands alone will be afraid. The same goes for a country, especially a country that is set up in the form of a democracy because this kind of country depends on support from it's people. When a person stands alone against another they may be afraid, if a country stands up against another and one has the support of its people and the other doesn't the one which doesn't will be less confident. A lack of confidence leads to poor decisions and eventually defeat. Therefore patriotism whether reasonable or rational is necessary because it helps you to be in a country which is safe and that will be able to protect you.

Instincts

When Freud talks about infantile wishes he is not talking about thoughts that we have consciously. Infantile wishes include all urges we have instinctively such as those to survive. These include competition for food and shelter. instinctively we are social and rely on others to survive but if someone is not helpful, is not the person who feeds us and puts us to bed, we see no need for them instinctively. While our childhood brain cannot comprehend it we feel the urge to be rid of this other person who is in competition with us according to Freud's theory. He goes even further to say that sons want to kill their fathers and daughters want to kill their mothers. Freud says this desire is linked to a sexual attraction that sons find towards their mothers and daughters find towards their fathers. I agree that there might be some primal instinct to be rid of someone who is not healthy however and these wishes are repressed by society and come out in the form of dreams.

As I mentioned in my last post however, there is no one reason for dreams. We talked in class that you can dream about your day, something that frightens you or something that makes you happy. These kind of dreams I think are just the brains way of processing events and emotions. The weird dreams however where there are upside-down clowns in space can come from some sort of repressed thought or feeling coming to the surface and then being distorted to keep you asleep.  Freud's theory has some good points but also some bad as with every theory.

Either Or

This week we have been talking about Freud's dream theory. We discussed different kinds of dreams and whether the fact that there are clean cut, easy to understand dreams makes other dreams lack in meaning. What I don't understand is why there has to be an either/or? When I have a long day I sleep and don't dream or at least go into such deep sleep I cannot remember them. Is the fact that I don't dream these nights mean something? Is there something to detect in my lack of remembrance? While we were talking about all of the different types of dreams, I thought about Freud's hypothesis that says dreams are our infantile dreams coming from our suppressed unconscious. Then Hobson says that dreams are a result of random firings from our brain stem. Why can't both of these be true? Couldn't it be true that some dreams are random, some are from the days experiences and some are more in depth and reveal our hidden or suppressed wishes? I don't necessarily agree with either side however they both seem to have some merit. Dreams can shake us to our core and compel us to do something rash or just simply new. Other dreams just confuse us. Taking this into account there has to be some middle ground between both sides of the debate.

http://www.raptitude.com/2010/03/40-belief-shaking-remarks-from-a-ruthless-nonconformist/

The right to have rights

Being a woman has been accepted much longer than being a different race or a different sexuality. Women have been openly around for much longer than homosexuals and people of other races. It was not even until 1492 until we knew Native Americans even existed. Women got the right to vote before African Americans and in Europe women had the right to vote as well as many more rights, before people of color and American women. Therefore women have been at least tolerated in western society for much longer than other minorities in our culture.

This is the reason I believe that women in general and feminists appear to think that they have more of a right to rights than other minorities. Women have been a group for much longer and have been putting up with being the underdogs longer and more openly than any other group and appear to have finally become fed up. In regards to the openly being submissive you may say, well we had slaves for hundreds of years. In response to this, yes however in the western world who was the first to be dominated? The wives. Until very recent history women were considered property and had no rights regardless of the treatment of them by their husbands and fathers. Not to mention, in many niches of our culture homosexuality as well as not being a white Anglo-Saxon is not completely accepted by men or women. Therefore women who do not accept these minorities will automatically see themselves as better than people who are and think they have more of a right to rights.

What IS "Feminine"

The reason our culture is so unequal is because there is a double standard, not because we eat meat. We have inequality because we have different expectations of each sex. Whether or not eating meat is attached to these expectations I do not know but the whole system is much larger than one or two issues.  As I mentioned in my Q and A we have expectations and definitions for what is a man and what is a woman. So long as we have these expectations and associate "feminine" qualities with lesser beings then we will have inequality.

Objectification

 Many women are offended if a man does not complement her outfit, her body etc. Women objectify even each other. We compare ourselves to models and to one another. We objectify ourselves by wearing revealing clothing and outfits that are made to objectify our bodies. Men are not the only people to blame when it comes to the objectification of women.

This objectification I am talking about is not such as described above where women are seen as "pieces of meat". I am talking about in everyday life walking the street or in the workplace. Women wear clothing to show off what they and society deems their assets which in turn cause their more conservative female peers and male peers to look down on them. This goes with the thought of "Oh, she only got the job because of her looks." In this sense women are seen as objects but in the sense of wanting a pretty piece of art or a nice looking car. The everyday objectification of women is partly women's fault but is also societies fault. We raise our boys to be dominant and to want/compare the "best" things in life. It starts small with an appreciation for sports equipment, escalates to cars and clothing and then carries over to their teenage and adult years with their comparing of women. Many men can break this habit as they mature but if you go into most teenage boys rooms and some college age boys rooms you will see video games with half clad women as well as posters and pictures or even a magazine or two if you look long enough.

I am neither condoning nor condemning these practices because they are an issue which is not simple nor easy to fix. I can see two solutions. One is that women objectify men more openly so we are on equal fields of objectivity or we condemn objectifying either sex and get rid of all forms of objectivity in media and everyday life. The second solution would be much harder to implement however may be overall better for out societies body issues and overall self image issues. The second solution may also create a black market for objective material.   

I wanna...piece of meat

In such advertisements such as porn and other male oriented mediums from commercials and advertisements to whole TV shows or movies  women tend to be objectified as things instead of as people. While men may be or at least many men may appear to entertain these images and idolize this objectification in real life few men expect women to be submissive in this sense. Many say that chivalry is dead and when you look at famous people, such as rock stars and sports players who go through women like tissues, this appears to hold true. For men who cannot rely solely on talents and money however have found they cannot get any lasting relationship without putting in some effort.

As for objectifying women as a "piece of meat" to be used/eaten then thrown away, whichever women say they feel that way, must not be finding the right men. Men may walk by a woman and say a possibly inappropriate or offending comment but women do the same thing towards men except they say it in private. The only reason men are assumed to be the offensive, objective gender is because no one notices when a woman says something about a man or uses a man, but everyone notices when a man says something about a woman.

Death Anxiety

Humans have a death anxiety that no other creatures on Earth have. This is because we can think in the future tense and plan for tomorrow instead of surviving right now, today. Some sociologists claim that religion is a coping mechanism for this anxiety. My second question this week was what a naturalist would  use to cope with this anxiety in loo of religion.

A naturalist who relies on their answers from scientifically observable facts would probably be better at coping with this death anxiety. Many people who base their beliefs off of science accept death more readily than those who believe in a higher power. Death is simply a fact of life. Our bodies simply decay and we must end our time on this Earth. To explain people who die young science could say it is the survival of the fittest. If that person had grown to maturity they would have undesirable traits or they would no be able to pass on any traits because of some medical or social issue. This explanation is not very satisfying but is more than nothing and could be a reason why some people turn to religion. Religion explains some things that science can not but science also explains some things that religion can not.

Overall a naturalist may be worried about death but could probably rationalize it more than a supernaturalist. A supernaturalist would ask questions such as "But I am a good person, why would God want me to die?" whereas a naturalist may think "I don't want to die but I know that it is inevitable and when my body has taken to much I will die."

Standing Alone

When we have people who share our opinions then it is easy to argue them. We know that no matter what we do there will be someone else in the world who will back us up. But what happens when we stand alone? There is a quote that many reference to that is easier said than done. "Stand up for what you believe even if you stand alone." Even with this wisdom, courage is more difficult to come by than finding a quote.

Someone can truly believe in what they are saying and fight every opposition. After a while though most people will give up and while they may still have their beliefs they are more likely to pretend they don't. When everyone says the sky is blue but you see the sky as green you are not going to go against what everyone and everything says. This is the problem when it comes to minorities. They are taught that their beliefs are wrong and no one wants to say otherwise so even if they are not they feel alone.

Look at the rate of suicide among homosexual teens. They live their lives in the closet because no one they know is open about their sexuality. They hear in the hall every day words like "that's so gay" and "faggot". These young men and women feel so isolated that they are unlikely to fight for their point of view. I am not saying that there are no people in this world who are willing to fight for something in which they stand alone but there is an outstanding number of people who are frightened to stand by themselves and because of this will not argue their opinion.

Responsibility

My second question is when is it okay to say someone is not responsible for their actions? This is in reference to the conundrum of determinism and the law and whether or not someone whose actions are determined is still responsible for any crime they commit and if they should be punished. There are the obvious cases where someone is out of their mind but what about when someone is in their right mind. Can we argue that brains are wired incorrectly? Can we argue that if something is determined then the person is not responsible?

If we made these arguments then no one would be held responsible for their actions and no one would be praised. Our society would have no order. While punishment is not always the answer if we simply accept that no one is responsible for anything then not only would there be no punishment there would be no active reform or consequences. I believe that whether or not the world is determined people should be held responsible for both good and bad actions.

Happiness and Determinism

My first question was whether someone could be happy knowing that their whole life was planned out for them. If we knew for certain that every choice we made was predetermined would we still live as fulfilled a life as one where we at least appear and can believe that we have the chance to make a difference on our own life?

This thought has me torn. On the one hand we could trust that our choices are the right ones for our lives but on the other hand, what if our "right" choices put us into a bad spot? If we end up in a place we do not want to be it would be easier to think I can change this, I have the power to turn my life around than to give up that power to the fact that I must have done something to make this happen.

If we know that everything is already determined then the reaction to bad situations would be drastically changed. Instead of people being able to feel like they can lift themselves up, it would be like in the Middle Ages when everyone put their faith in a higher power and simply believed that even though life on Earth was miserable, they had to live that life and would eventually go to another, better place.

Nowadays however, the number of people who believe that their miserable life on Earth will end with their afterlife in a better place, is growing slim. More people are putting their faith in science and less in religion. Therefore if we lived in a world where everyone knew for a fact that they have no control over their lives the rate of depression and overall misery would be so much more than it is today because, there would be a sense of hopelessness and helplessness. The other probable outcome would be a regression to a time where we put our entire fate into the hands of a  higher being or maybe even to a society with more emphasis on "survival of the fittest".

What is the "right" choice?

In the article the author asks, how do we determine in the first place which is the "right" choice? He asks this question when talking about free will and whether it exists. This is a very good point because if we are truly free, not predetermined, then the chances that we will not make the "right" decision is great. We can use our knowledge of the world to make our decisions but knowing that we make these decisions purely of our own volition makes us question whether we made the right choice or not. Some people just have really bad luck. Is this because the world decided that they would be unlucky or are they making the wrong decisions. A determinist would say that all the events up until that moment determined that that person would be unlucky. A free will believer would say that the person simply made bad choices. There is no way in either belief system to fully know if we made the "right" choice. We as humans and not knowing fully whether we are determined or if we have free will simply must trust our minds to make the choices or to trust that the plan determined for us will not lead us astray.

The Universe

In class yesterday I wanted to ask if someone who believes in determinism and rejects the idea of God then what do they say created the universe? By being a determinist you believe that since the beginning of the universe every event is determined based on all that has happened. So what created the universe? The beginning of the universe can be argued as the beginning of time, space and everything. What existed before the universe? Nothing. Does determinism not start until the universe and maybe before the universe free will existed? However then the question of for who free will existed if nothing and no one existed.

The Prisoner's Dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma is an interesting concept. More people should understand this concept because then they would make more educated decisions about whether or not to cooperate with another person especially if they will be reasoning with this person again. In the example Houchin mentions the neighborhood people defect on the builder even though it would be more profitable for both parties to cooperate. I see no reason for people to, in general, to defect because if they can get the other participant to cooperate then they are always better than if they both defect. Most people however do not think like this, they think, "well their going to defect because they are greedy so I will defect so I do not get the smaller piece of the pie."  I think if more people understood that by cooperation they profit more than through defection then there would be more cooperation.

Selflessness

In response to Lyndsey's Blog, not only is selflessness difficult, it is impossible. Not only you would be dull, you would not exist. Everything is self interested. Every act we do, everything we say has a self motivation. Whether or not we mean to we never do anything without getting something in return. We may not mean to get anything in return, we may not even plan to get anything but it happens. By volunteering as a tutor at your local middle school you get to increase your experience with children, meet new people and network not to mention the delight one gets from working with children (this example is assuming that you would not work as a tutor unless you liked kids). I agree with Lyndsey's conclusion that self interested is a goal that one should strive to reach because selfless people who are the essence of selflessness cannot survive.

Altruism and Morals

Altruism is doing something for someone else for their own sake. You can do something morally good for your own sake and still be morally good. One does not have to be altruistic to be morally good, morally good people are virtuous people and altruism is simple a subset of virtue. You can also satisfy your morals of helping other people because you want to be morally good and not because you want to help people. Houchin says that it does not matter as much what someones motives are as long as what they do ends up being good and helping people. Except in the most extreme and rare cases where someone is meaning harm but actually helps someone this rule seems to apply. Whether you want to help someone to satisfy a community service requirement, a guilty conscious, because you want to or so you don't have to go to jail, in the end someone who needs it still gets help. Overall a lack of altruistic traits may make you less appealing to some people you so long as you are still morally correct then you are not a morally bad person because of your lack of altruism.

Superogation

Everyone makes decisions subjectively. Even when we are being objective we have some sense of subjectivity in what we say or do. One example is in how we define our selves socially. One theory of this is the looking glass self. We act based on what we think others think of us and act how we think others expect us to act. One may say that we are individuals and when I choose to wear a black hoodie it is because I want to not because anything anyone else says.  This is not the case. We are a social animal and as Aristotle says we need others to survive and be fully human. He may not have realized but this need to be with other people is so great that we even base all of our 'personal' decisions off of their opinions.

My question was if we judge the basis of what is duty and what is superogation subjectively then what is the point of discussing it objectively? The reason I have concluded is that we need to compare ourselves to others as it is in our nature. The only way we can define the world is through the eyes of others. We are not solitary creatures and since the beginning of our time here on Earth we have had to rely on others to help us get food, for services and now today, for everything. Overall we must compare even our subjective traits to others because otherwise they would not mean anything.

Equal Opportunity Education

The editors mention that not everyone in our society are able to get a fulfilling career because the top most education is unavailable to those without financial stability. If someone is really poor they probably live in a crummy, worn down neighborhood and go to a public high school that receives poor funding and are probably treated like a delinquent as soon as they step through the door. Many a person has come out of a poor family and made a life, but many a more have come from a wealthy family and stayed that way. The resources available in a private high school as opposed to a public one are substantially greater and even from one public high school to another, resources vary. No one has an equal education and this fact helps keep some people poor and others wealthy. This is not to say it is impossible to move but recent history has proven that it is getting increasingly harder to gain mobility.

Working people-Q&A

If someone lives an unexamined, 'unfulfilled' life because they work seventy hours a week are they to blame? If one needs to work a lot to survive and therefore have little free time after eating and sleeping, are they to blame for their unexamined life?

If someone is working that much it is not like they are laying on the couch and watching TV all the time. They are interacting with their coworkers, any customers etc. They are living their life to the fullest they can because if they are not working that much then what happens to their spouse and children. They are in a sense living a fulfilled life because they are surviving, They have chosen the path of living rather than of thinking and hoping another meal comes on the table. I think these people are living the fulfilled life not in Aristotle, Plato or Socrates sense but in the sense of the average person. What is the purpose of life if we cannot even feed ourselves? If we cannot feed ourselves then we cease to exist and there is no purpose. I would rather spend my life working to better it than thinking about bettering it.

Miracles

In Rachel's Blog she talks about miracles. She also mentions, in a sense that everything happens for a reason. I agree one hundred percent. In class we mentioned every event has a cause, every event also has an effect. Typing this blog is causing me to not study for my psychology test or go outside. Typing this blog is also causing me to get a better grade in this class than if I didn't type it and that will in turn help my GPA which may or may not help me get a job in the future.

Miracles have a cause yet we either do not want to know what that cause is or cannot find it. This is how a miracle happens. As you grow intellectually the amount of miracles that you experience grow less because you know the answer to more questions. This is not to say that miracles do not exist for intelligent people but they occur less frequently.Everything happens for a reason and there is a cause behind every event but sometimes we just do not need to find the cause.

Compassion- Q&A

Aristotle says that we must be compassionate to all human beings yet he disregards the potential of woman's intelligence and calls non-Greeks barbarians. We may say that this was the time period and no one considered woman as able to be educated yet Aristotle disregards woman more than his teacher. This suggests a regression in the thought process but history says we are supposed to become more accepting as time goes on not less. Why would Aristotle think this way?


Aristotle rationalizes his view on women by saying that women are free unlike slaves and are ruled for their own good not for their masters benefit. Men are by nature fitter to rule than women. The relationship between man and women is one of kind but is always going to be unequal.

Aristotle believes that Greeks are better than non-Greeks and calls non-Greeks more likely to be "animal like barbarians". This is a heliocentric point of view where people think that their culture is better than other cultures. To this day people still think like this and base other people cultures based on their own. By using this method we can never appreciate other cultures and can never learn.

Answer 2

When Plato discusses the Philosopher Kings he also mentions other classes of people he wishes to see. Among the other classes he includes workers, farmers, policemen, soldiers, civil servants, and all those who produce and distribute the material necessities of life. He however proposes to exclude artists and poets from his ideal society. Artists throughout the history of mankind have been those who comment most expressively on world issues. We can tell the mood of a time period based on the artwork that came out of it. Poets have been equally influential and have helped many a person to explore their inner feelings.

Poets and artists provide a society with culture. Their work helps to tie together people of different backgrounds. Everyone can relate to a picture about the troubled economy or a poem about World
War I. Many eras of our history have been defined by their artwork.Also art allows people to express themselves. Without it many people would be trapped inside their minds and not able to let anything out. And while Plato didn't propose to get rid of art, without having art related jobs many people would not be inclined to follow their passion of painting or writing. Whole professions and ways of life would be wiped out and as a result more people would probably go insane or become criminals.

Answer

My question was if you die you exist only as a memory, what happens when the bearer of that memory also dies? Will you cease to exist? Would it be like you never were here at all?

This question is also related to what is the purpose? Why are we hear? Everyone has a path in life that they choose in some sense of the word. We accomplish many things during our lives and meet and get to know a lot of people. In the movie It's a Wonderful Life, they show what happens when someone is never born however, what happens after we live our life and die. This world mourns for us temporarily but we are really insignificant. We are one person of seven billion on one planet of eight in one star system out of one hundred billion and one galaxy out of one hundred billion. So if we think of the universe as a whole, one person barely matters. Even the people who live on through books ect. after they die, barely even scratch the surface of the universe. This however is what makes humans so amazing. We know we are so small compared to the universe yet we try and make a difference. We don't care whether we will be remembered for ever, we still live life to the fullest. Because of this fact I think we continue to exist even after we and everyone who ever knew us or about us is gone as well.

Virtue

"To be a good human being it is good enough to know what human virtue is." (76)

Do serial killers know what human virtue is? Do rapists or thieves? If someone knows what a virtuous human being is, it does not make them virtuous and does not make them a good person. You can know that you are doing wrong and know what is right but simply knowing what is right is not enough. You need to practice at being nice, and good and doing well. 


Everyone is taught through their life, don't do this, do that, say please etc.  As we grow up we can make our own decisions about whether we follow the rules of being a good person. If we all simply were virtuous by nature of knowing what virtue was there would be no police, no crime, no murder. Everyone is taught what being a good person is and what virtue is, we choose whether or not we abide by these standards. Plato is naive to say that a person is virtuous by knowing the nature of the word. At least in modern day life there are examples of those who know better yet still do wrong. CEO's know that they should pay taxes and it is illegal to evade paying them however they pay less percentage in taxes than almost every other group of people. These CEO's have all gone to school, know enough to run a business and learned as much as any other person about right or wrong yet they choose to not do right in this aspect of their life.

Education

Plato was the first to see education as the key to constructing a better society. If we teach children to be well rounded individuals and to develop character to help society, society as a whole will be better. I agree with him wholeheartedly. With a good education you are three steps ahead right from the start. You can learn skills that you develop and improve throughout your lifetime. Without being a well rounded person how can you expect to learn anything more complex or move ahead in life?

You can see it everyday, people who sound more educated and look more put together get the better jobs. The person who walks into an interview with a suit is more likely to get the job than someone who walks in in jeans and a t-shirt. The t-shirt wearer will be lower on the list of who to hire before the interview even starts. No one wants to listen to someone whose not put together or who cannot pretend. We live in a material society and whether they want to or not people have made their minds up about you before you even speak.

By having a good education one can learn the do's and do not's of a society and learn how to act. We can learn the formal rules then decide whether or not to break them. Not having a good education can put you behind before you start because you do not know how to act and cannot respond to life situations in a 'normal' way. By everyone learning the rules first at least there is an even playing field.

Hard and Fast

How much can nurture effect our lives? If a person comes from a broken family and learns how to act within a broken family will their personality show it? Most people say a broken, dysfunctional family
will promote broken dysfunctional people. If someone grows up in a hostile environment they will think that that is how everyone acts. When they are beaten or see their mother or sibling beaten they think all fathers beat their families and either allow their future spouse batter them or batter their spouse. Statistics say that you are so much more likely to become an abuser of people and substances if you grow up around that kind of abuse. Therefore statistics say that you are almost doomed from the moment you are brought into this world.

This idea of society and the people in it is not a hard and fast rule. There is no way to tell who is going to grow up to be successful and who will not be. Simply growing up with hardships and in the face of difficulty does not guarantee that you will be a failure at life. When people say that broken families make for broken people, broken government and broken politics, they are exaggerating. They are using stereotypes to judge the population on a smaller percent of people.

Destiny

Every choice we make, assuming every choice is of our own free will, prevents us from doing something else. We can choose to do one specific event and going to this event could alter our lives by either what we learn or a person we meet or both. However, by going to this event we rule out the possibility of going to another event at the same time that could change our lives just as drastically as going to the other event, simply by showing us different people or knowledge. So, assuming every choice is of our own free will, could we go through life making all of the wrong choices and making our life so much worse by choosing the wrong event, person or thing?

While we could debate on how eating ham instead of turkey can change ones life because they missed out the pleasures of turkey, that effect on your life is probably much less than perhaps, choosing the wrong person to spend the rest of your life with. However, if we spend all of our time worrying if we picked the right friends or the right lover, we will never have time to find out of we are with the right person and if we are making correct decisions.

Assuming that every choice that we make is of our own free will then can we control our own destiny? Can it really be just our own fault for not being able to see what is good for us? Sociology tells us that nothing we do exists in a vacuum. So every choice we make effects something else either by limiting our choices or by introducing us to something else. The chances of some person going through their whole life without making one single correct choice about a life changing even is slim to none yet, sometimes the impossible does happen...

Obedience

Confucius says that to be a good son one must obey his father and when his father dies if the son changes none of his fathers ways for at least three years then he has fulfilled his role as a son. Confucius also says that a father must rule with moral integrity as should any other ruler. Confucius however does not touch on whether a father is moral or not. He assumes that since a father is a father then he will abide by the Decree of Heaven since it is the right thing to do.

What happens when a father is a drunk? What if he is abusive? What should the son do then? According to Confucius he should still follow his fathers ways simply to be a good son. If the son wants to be morally correct however he must disobey his fathers ways. If this son then proceeds to follow a benevolent and morally correct life then that should counteract him not being a good son.

Few people today follow in their parents footsteps directly. Usually they will follow them until they are about eighteen, maybe into their early twenties. From here most children may follow their parents footstep by accident or on purpose. However many choose to stray from their parents little by little until they have formed their own life. This does not make a child any better or worse than another child who does follow their parents footsteps. The only thing that should define the quality of a person is their words and their actions towards others. They should be measured on the quality of their life not by how well they can copy another persons life.

God versus Religion

In chapter one on Confucius is quoted as saying "You are not able even to serve man. How can you serve the spirits?". (p.11) He believed in some higher power and was also said to have founded the idea of the Decree of Heaven therefore believed in another place, an afterlife.

Can a person have these beliefs without the belief in religion? Religion is an arbitrary creation of the human need to have order and to have someone else to blame for all the wrongs that have happened to them. Religion can also be seen as an organization made by "the man" to "keep his subjects in line". Religion can also be seen as societies motif to cope with humans natural death anxiety.

The basis of of religion is centered around one or many God figures. A lot of religions also focus on doing good either simply to better society or to better yourself to go to heaven after death. There is a focus on what Confucius called the Decree of Heaven which is a set of rules about how to act towards others. If someone can learn these morals outside of the organized religion then there is no point in participating in specific rituals.

Overall you can have a sense of the Decree of Heaven as well as God without having to participate in an organized religion of any kind. There are loads of people in this day and age who can relate to a specific religions beliefs while not participating in the logistics of being a 'true' member. 

Objective versus Subjective

Everyday we overhear pointless conversations between either a couple of people or a larger group. The topics include hair, makeup, parties and other shallow topics. I myself am not immune to the seductiveness of these topics however as I go along in my day I find that I overhear more shallow conversations then I partake in. Some conversations I have heard make my braincells die and most of these conversations are not only shallow but filled with completely self centered comments such as 'My hair looks ugly' 'My boyfriend hates me' 'I have no money'. Most people, especially high school and college students are focused on what they can do to help themselves and make their lives better. Not many watch the news or pay attention to the heartaches of others outside of their immediate cliques and circles.
All of these shallow conversations are subjective as they all have to do with 'me, me, me'. We need to change these conversations from such subjective points of view to more objective ones that deal with current events and the issues of today. 
This is the dilemma of our generation and is one that will require more of an attempt to solve than Global Warming, Economic Collapses or our enormous debt because it will need to be fixed first since no one will know about the other dilemmas unless they get their heads out of the clouds and pay attention. 

My name is Meghan. I am a freshman this year at Massachussetts College of Liberal Arts. I am from Cape Cod and before last semester knew nothing about the Berkshires. Regardless, when I got here I realized MCLA was the place for me and I could not be happier. I am undecided as to what I would like to major in as well as my possible career. I have decided to simply explore classes that interest me and I hope to eventually find the place for me.
I play soccer, love camping, and skiing. My family is the world to me and I would protect them no matter what. I love my life and I would never change anything, I cannot wait to find my calling through my classes this semester and I am excited to be sharing this exploration time with you.