A Final Observation

While looking through all of these different theories and philosophies, there is one indisputable fact that I observed: people simply want to explain their existence an give meaning to life. Furthermore, humanity wishes to know the best way to live, to be fulfilled. It seems to be a quest that almost everyone feels the need to act upon. We look to books, speakers, philosophers, and religions. Every one has the equal right to choose their own belief and how willing they are to listen or change. It can define people in many ways. Like wise the meaning a person finds could be complex and riddled with deep thought, like many in the text, or simply throw everyone else through a questioning hoop like Douglas Adam's, "The answer to life, the universe and everything else is 42."

"So long and thanks for all the fish." 

Forming Groups

In class it was mentioned that, for many animals, it is a survival instinct to form a group. Many times this is most obvious case of this is when a predator is attacking. In the case of elephants, the group forms a wall between the attacker and the prey. You can observe the same behavior in humans. Being, obviously social animals, we automatically form groups. Although there is not as many attackers that would wish to truly kill us for food like a lion, a group still helps to protect against bullying and other harassment from those outside the group. Likewise, when people find themselves without any form of group, they are more likely to be targeted and are often pushed to their breaking point much sooner.

Cooperation or Chaos

As it was pointed out in class: even in competition there must be cooperation. Any sport or game must have rules, even the most brutal of competitions. Think of why cheating is so frowned upon. By making the odds unfairly in your favor it destroys any attempts of cooperation. It removes any test of skills or strength and instead the competition becomes another pointless bout of survival. You can also observe this outside of  any game or sport. Take the market system as an example. By every business or product theoretically having the same opportunities, consumers are allowed to choose which product they purchase. The competition comes into play with commercials and general advertising as well simply making the best product possible. If a company decides to completely destroy, or make it impossible for another company to produce, then the cooperation is broken. Also, as many know, competition, and therefore cooperativeness, helps the quality and prices of products. There simply cannot be competition without cooperation. Other wise it is chaos.

Intelligence and Technology

In class the idea that technology is causing people to be increasingly less intelligent or knowledge able. I do not think this is true. Consider how much information has been made accessible by technology. Of course there are books filled with information, and they still hold great value, but the amount of information that has been made available to the masses over the internet is almost miraculous. Technology has also acted as a medium to a better understanding, and knowledge of other countries. Although many people remain rather ignorant of other cultures there is no doubt that we are moving forward.
Technology however, by allowing people to accomplish tasks faster, has given people more time to spend as they wish. The problem comes into play when people chose to spend their extra hours goofing off instead of continuing to expand their knowledge in some manner.

Traits Against Us

When talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection people often tend to think of the traits of a parent  being passed down to the offspring helping them to survive. I know that personally (and I bet many others have done so to) I used to forget about the idea of bad traits or genes being passed to the next generation, such as being more likely to drink or have certain diseases. I wonder if this is in fact part of natural selection. It a harsh thought, that part of humanity may be systematically diminished, but then again many of the individuals still manage to have children and pass on the gene.

The Burden of Freedom

Sartre's concepts bring up the very touchy idea of being 'condemned to freedom', suggesting that freedom is a sort of burden. For Americans, a country who prides itself with freedom, even the suggestion seems, to many, like an insult.  We are condemned in the aspect that we have no choice but to choose one path over another. We can not simply sit idly and wait, for even that is a choice we make. This means that no matter how much we  may not want to we must always decide in some way. However true Sartre's statement I believe his wording is almost too harsh causing people to automatically want to dismiss his theories. Our freedom to choose is still something to cherish, it means that as a species we have the intelligence to make, and capability to act upon, these choices.

Another Observation

In response to philosowater.

I also would be cautious about dealing out absolutes. As far as the idea of people choosing to be poor there are a number of examples to consider. Without doubt there are definitely people who, despite their best efforts, fall into poverty and/or remain there. There are also those who choose to live a simplistic life, for religious believes or other personal beliefs.  There are then the individuals who simply abuse the opportunities that are presented to them. For example there are many stories of families in near by towns that have a low income job but instead of choosing to pay their rent, the money they obtain goes towards their Cable or internet bill. In many of these cases, these families rely and expect, state money to support them. So instead of trying to save up the money that they earn in order to secure a better future, it is often spent on unnecessary goods. It is simply another factor that might be considered before claiming that no one chooses to live paycheck to paycheck.

Determinism and Sartre

Sartre's idea of radical freedom of course conflicts greatly with any concept of determinism but then it is still possible for the two ideas to coexist in  some context. Determinism eliminates any possibility of free will, but even if you fully accept the concept of determinism no one can possibly conceive whatever path has been determined. So even if you believe fully in determinism you can not simply stop making choices(even to stop making choices would be a conscience choice) . For every aspect of our lives that we can actually perceive, it does seem as though everything relies on our choices and as Sartre( in his early works) would argue we are alone in our minds to make these choices.

Choosing

Sartre's idea that all choices are completely and unarguably our responsibility brings to mind the ignorant statement that people choose their sexuality. It can be heard constantly among religious followers and politicians  that individuals chose to be homosexual and that should be able to simply choose to be heterosexual. As if to say that individuals choose to be under constant ridiculed. They suggest that any one who is not heterosexual choose to be constantly bullied and assaulted by members of society. Even more so, that individuals choose to remain homosexual and end their lives instead of simply choosing to change their sexuality. These claims are arrogant and simply stated idiotic. It is the equivalent of saying that an man or woman could chose to be a different race or skin color that they were born.

Where Emotions Come From

The text explains that Sartre believed that we choose our emotions, just as we choose every other aspect of our mental lives, and we are thus fully responsible for them. So if "I am sad it is only because I choose to make myself sad." There is no doubt that in some cases this can be true. for instance you can choose to dwell on an idea or thought that makes you sad, or you can choose to think about other things that are pleasing to you. But in many instances the statement that we choose our emotions seems rather ignorant within modern knowledge. It is like telling a depressed person to stop being sad, that they themselves are making everything worse, even though countless studies have proven that depression is often caused by a serious chemical imbalance that people simply cannot control. Similarly, when we are being seriously physically attacked it is almost biological to feel fear or want to fight back, such as been labeled 'the fight or flight' reaction. So yes, there are often times and cases that we can choose how we feel about things but there are also severe cases in which people simply cannot.

Choice and Emotion

Thoughts on http://asfwr2012s.blogspot.com/2012/04/evangelism.html

It is interesting to observe how emotions greatly effect the choices that people make. Of course Sartre stated that emotions are ultimately our choice, as in it is our decision to be sad or happy, so they are also our responsibility. Despite their source, there is no doubt that emotions can play a very strong role in our decisions and choices. For instance, as Avery describes, a daughter choosing to follow a religion out of fear of being condemned may forever regret her decision. Another example is a man choosing to hurt another being in a fit of rage and then having to live with any punishments that come as a result, as well as any guilt. In any situation emotions, humanity's great gift, such as rage, fear,sadness or even bliss can cloud our judgments. They can pull us away from reason and make our choices irrational.

Technology and War

In class a question was raised on whether or not there would be as many wars if there was different or less technology. In fact history shows many more wars and battles in times before industrialization. In the present, it could easily be argued that there are much more legal, and diplomatic battles fought, threatening with profit rather than destruction. Even if the number of wars has not changed dramatically, there is no doubt that technology has changed how they are fought. Instead of swords and arrows we have guns and missiles. There is a chance that wars may not be as frequent, but there is no doubt that with technologies help they have become more deadly. A single weapon could flatten miles of land in an instant, while a soldier can be given a gun that could kill ten people in a single round of bullets. Maybe, and with good reason, wars may not be as frequent and sought out because we fear what technology will bring us to do, what destruction it will bring.

Owning People

Why do people want to claim ownership, such as ‘my friend,’ or ‘my mom,’ over other people and is it right to do so? In modern society it seems that many people have the want to claim ownership to people. For example we commonly say phrases like: "my Mom," "my Dad," or "My Friend." But what is out justification. Many times we claim ownership to tings we had labored to create or obtain, like "my House," but unless we are someones parents we do create, or buy people. Instead perhaps, people tend to want to claim ownership over people over others because of the bonds they have labored to create. But is right to claim ownership over people. Often times this becomes a touchy subject. In American culture, we often tend to think back to slavery and automatically reject the idea, and yet still phrases like "my friend" are ever present. 
I think that there is a general, silent, agreement that even though we may say "my friend," we do not actually have any true ownership over the individual, but simply a close bond with them. If that is the case, there is no true harm in the statement but rather a way to show connection. 

Response to Brandon Gaudet

You can find the original post http://nayru-gwlt-philosowater.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-does-american-public-education.html

I agree that in Public education, Marx and his ideas are often criticized and made out to be evil or completely ignored. As far as my own education, I remember his name being mentioned and that he had connections to communism and then he was never mentioned again. I never had to read any of his writings or look closely at his theories.

I also agree that when it comes to education, our society tends to be very gullible. We listen, without doubt, to our teachers, friends, family, or even television, to information and never think twice to question it. We absorb information like it is the absolute truth. When it comes to international dealings, this mindset sets people, and the country, up for humiliation. We can come off as ignorant and extremely biased. 

Alienated Company Owner?

Are the owners, or heads of companies, as alienated from the product as Marx claims the workers are? Marx suggests that workers become very alienated for their work. The best example of this is that factory workers never may never get a chance to own or even see the product that they have been laboring to create. Similarly a worker is also alienated from his or her nature. This is in part because in most jobs the worker is constantly being told what to create and never has any creative choice. I am curious if the same is true for the owner of a company. Unlike the workers, in general, they do see the profits directly and stand to gain the most from productions of goods. However, in a manner they could also be considered alienated because they do not actually create the product. Of course this alienation may very well be seen as welcomed, however unfair, for many company owners, get the greatest profit from the least amount of physical, or even mental, work. 

Seeing What We Want

During a conversation with friends it was brought up that, given history and location, Jesus would look very different than how many western people picture him. In all probability he would not be white or even as tall as he is depicted. The same thing happens when trying to depict God. 'He' is supposed to be beyond humanity's imagination and yet we still try to attach an image with him, and many people never think twice about the idea. I think that it is partially that we see what we want to see, almost like selective hearing. Even though facts may be present people still choose the believe what they already know. In away it is similar to denying that an accident occurred just simply because you couldn't handle that idea that it were true. When looking at religious icons, many followers would be thrown off guard if they were presented with images that contradicted their image of the lord and savior. 

Religion and Holidays

It is interesting to see how far Christian holidays have drifted away from their original purpose.  For instance, this weekend many families celebrated Easter. When I was young, the first things that came to my mind when I heard it was Easter, was eggs, candy and bunnies. It was not until I was much older that the concept of Christ being reborn was even brought to my attention. The same thing can be observed in commercials around holidays, religious aspects are put away and instead we are flooded with commercialism. It begs the question how characters and traditions like the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause became intertwined with events like the death and birth of Christ.
Another question that arises is whether or not it is right to celebrate such diluted holidays. Of course it has become obvious that such holidays are becoming over run by unnecessary commercials and products, but all traditions still have value. Whether religious or not, holidays, however celebrated, have the power to bring together families and remind people of what they are thankful for.

Fueling Sterotypes

Is it possible that stories in the Bible, such as Genesis (3:6), have fueled social stereotypes of the different genders? Many of the Bible's stories depict woman as the cause of chaos, giving into temptation and then persuading her husband to follow. There are also those who say woman was created after man to serve him and many also suggest that man is the primary form of humanity. It is interesting to see how similar these stories are to stereotypes that still exist today. For instant, many thought, and some still do, that women belong at home taking care of children, taking care of the house, and tending to what ever their husband wants. We can see traces of how women led to temptation in who has been elected to positions of power, such as presidents. It would be interesting to know how many stories from the Bible have led stereotypes that still exists today.

In the Image

What does it mean to be made in the “image of God?” It is constantly brought up in the Christian religion that mankind was created in the image of God himself. But there are so many contrary statements to that in the Bible's teachings so what could the statement really mean? It has been made very clear to us that God is in no way human and the visual representations of God that we see depicted in many European artworks is simply a metaphor. So what do we share with God? It can be speculated  that God created human with souls, or the spark of the Divine. In this respect, although we are no where near the power that God posses, we do have dominion over all other living creatures, who, according to Christianity, do not have souls. This idea of having a soul also allows us to live on beyond the time that our bodies perish. What we can say without doubt is that the idea of humans being created in God's image cannot be taken literally but rather as metaphor to another aspects the humankind. 

Never Ending

Too many times have our President's claimed that we are fighting a 'War on Terror." Terror can not be stopped. There will always be something creating terror in any country, it is inescapable. Just as we cannot know peace without war we cannot understand safety without fear. Even if you eliminate one source of terror, another will arise, in one form or another. So why fight a war that we can never win? I am not saying that efforts to find, and bring to justice, people who attack our country, like the events of September 11, 2001, are not justified. However, to claim the whole effort a 'War on Terror' seems as if we are being set up for failure, or simply to always have a reason to fight one another.

Purely Circumstance

Often people, from any nation, develop a blind opinion of things. For instance someone who lives in New England would probably say that the Patriots are the best football team and someone who lives in New York would side with the Giants. This is not based on how well the team plays, or how many times they have one, but where people were born and raised. The same things happens with what country people live in. If you were born in the USA then you may claim that you love the USA, but if you were born in Russia you would very likely say you love Russia. While it is usually justifiable, for so many people experience the same thing, this love is rather blind. We love the teams, or the country,simply because we happen to live there. In most cases it is purely circumstantial.We never notice, or simply ignore, any flaws or loses that our country encounters so many of us never push to make our team or country even better.

Blood the Thickest Bond?

Its often been said that 'blood is thicker than water,' that no matter what we will always love our family. There is no doubt that we usually have a stronger attachment to the people who raised us but not everyone one is raised by there blood relatives. As mentioned in class, cases that are often forgotten are children who have been adopted. They may never meet their biological parents but it does not mean that the people who raised them aren't just as good. In many cases I think it would be safe to say that children can have the same, if not stronger, attachment to their adopted parents as they could with their biological parents. There are also the cases in which children can end up despising their parents and have nothing to do with them., whether this hatred comes from abuse or another reason, would they truly love their 'blood' over other, kinder people? It does tend to be true that a child, in later life, will retain strong attachments or emotions towards, who ever raised them. After all children do spend nearly 15-20 years under their parents watch, regardless of blood.

Supporting the Troops

In class the idea of supporting the troops but not the war was brought up. I think it is a noble thought but needs some critiquing. If we talk about a war in which men were forced to sign up for a draft, or otherwise had no choice but to go, this idea is fairly valid. It was not their choice to go and fight and you can, almost justifiably, hope for their safety, regardless of their actions overseas. But in the case of the current and recent wars there has been no draft, no one forcing men and women to answer the call to fight. Of course, there a large incentive of money, or family pressure to join, but it is still ultimately the soldiers choice and even though they are following orders, it was there choice to do so in the first place. After considering that idea, perhaps those who who claim to support the troops and not the war may want to rethink what they say. Personally I support our troops finally being sent back home, so that they can stop killing, be safe, and be with their families again.

Meet In the Middle

After observing ideas from both sides of the argument, I believe that Hobson's and Soames' views on dreams could easily find a middle ground. I do not believe that everything the Freud said and theorized is false. There are, with out doubt, some very valid points and ideas in his works. As Hobson points out, they are some rather outdated in some cases unscientific but Hobson's claims that dreams are solely hallucinations. I would argue that dreams could very likely stem from memories, like Freud suggests, but that they do necessarily have to be repressed wishes from childhood. I would observe that dreams could very likely be a combination of both past and present wishes and memories of recent and past experiences. In retrospect Soames had a very valid idea of not simply throwing away Freud's theories but refining and improving them. 

Response: A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes

You can find the original post here http://lyndseyjohnson9330.blogspot.com/2012/03/dream-is-wish-your-heart-makes.html
I agree that in many cases it does make sense for dreams to be repressed wishes.  However, I question if nightmares "come out when a person is in a safe enough environment to have these thoughts occur." Instead I would argue that nightmares would be more likely to occur when you find yourself in an environment that you do not feel safe. When your brain/mind is caught up in thoughts that upset you, it may be harder for it to protect  you from your fears or to disguise your wishes. Therefore, the uneasiness and distraction coming from a place you do not feel safe in causes dreams to be less censored and become nightmares.

Response: Losing Sight of the Point

You can find the original post here: http://asfnhn2012s.blogspot.com/2012/03/losing-sight-of-point.html

I have also noticed this attitude in students and it seems to play a large hand in why students tend to cheat. They see nothing to gain from actually doing the work, only the goal of getting a good grade, so they find a way to get everything for nothing. We attend school not simply to become more educated but to learn to deal with problems and challenges that we may find in the world outside of the classroom.  So when a student cheats they completely ignore trying to solve the problem and possibly learn instead that they can cheat their way through life, just so that they could have more time to slack off. It's a bit of an ironic twist, by cheating to get a grade, you are cheating yourself out of the skills you could learn.

Influence on Dreams

On the topic of dreams I believe that Freud tends to ignore some of the key influences of our dreams. This is not to say that his theory is completely false, but rather that it lacks some information. Freud argues that our dreams all spawn from our repressed infantile wishes. From experience though I would argue otherwise. There is another very obvious influence on our dreams, our experiences right before I sleep. From personal experience: I had been waken up by a phone call and then fallen back to sleep, my right tone then preceded to experience my ring tone incorporated into my dream. Now it is obvious that this could be our unconscious pulling from information from our recent memories to disguise our repressed wishes. I simply believe that dreams can be much more nonsensical than Freud seems to claim. Instead of holding all this secret repressed information, they could simply be the random trails of our last thoughts before sleep.

Violence and Games

In class, the idea of violent actions and video games was briefly mentioned. It is a common idea that violent games, television and movies influence the people, usually youth, watching to be violent as well. However it truly depends on the age and mind set of the person playing or watching. If a person is mature enough they should be able to realize that the violence they act out in a game is purely fictional, that it is unacceptable in real life. That is piratically why violent games are so popular, because they allow consumers to do what is other wise forbidden in society. So if a player or viewer can comprehend that what they are seeing is purely fictional it should not lead to any excess of violence. Instead violent games have been said to act as a sort of therapy for some. When someone finds themselves in frustrating circumstances they can go home and take their anger out on a game instead of on another person.

Catch and Release

Kheel mentions that “to remove the consumption of the flesh from the hunting experience renders the narrative meaningless” but what about fishing? Fishing is, without doubt, a form of hunting. Often times though, many fishers simply enjoy just catching and then releasing the fish, not keeping it as food to consume and yet they still get a great amount of enjoyment from the activity. It is very arguable that you cannot 'catch and release' animals such as deer because unlike the hook that catches the fish, the bullet is much more life threatening and harmful. However, there can still be pleasure and enjoyment found in hunting animals, just as fishing, that does not come from simply being able to consume what you caught.

Are You Sure?

In her article, Marti Kheel writes: "Feminists typically have condemned form of domination and have expressed compassion for the downtrodden" (327). But is that really true? I have had many discussions among friends about traditional and modern feminists, and many have come to the same conclusion. Even though feminism was originally aimed at gaining universal gender equality, countless feminists have grown very far from that goal. Instead they wish to not balance but flip power roles, putting women in charge and completely discarding men. So even though Kheel writes of "compassion for the downtrodden" it is a very easy idea to misinterpret. The downtrodden is not only women, it could be men, transgender, anyone of different sexualities, or anyone who is not of the norm. Modern day feminists tend to aim for simply equality among all people. It is hard to say whether or not Kheel ever considers these other groups but her writing only focuses on the troubles of women and animals. If the norms were to ever change would feminists still try to help the downtrodden, even if it were men?

Appetite to Know

In the article it is mentioned that, "We are necessarily curious creatures, with insatiable appetites to understand, predict, and control our surroundings and ourselves. The discovery of how things work is intrinsically rewarding, and developing the pratical applications of discoveries in no less so" (1Clark). Clark says this applying to science and the naturalists but it can easily be applied to religious views as well. Just like people have looked to science for a better understanding, they can also look to religion. Almost any religion has answers for the questions that it seems no one else can answer: why there is war, why we die, what happens after we die. People can use religion in the same manner, to answer the otherwise unanswerable and satisfy our appetites for understanding just as science can.

Chains and Flowers

In class we mentioned Karl Marx's views on religion. In his book Critique of Hegels's Philosophy of Right Karl Marx writes: “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses.” This refers to his idea that religion helps people cope with the world and circumstances they live in. He also mentioned the idea that religion is the flowers decorating our chains, it helps us look past the fact that we are trapped and ruled over by those who hold power. He brings up the idea the critiquing religion is like plucking the flowers off the chains so that we are once again in our lowly state of capture. But if we cover up our chains, with other more pleasing concepts, we may forget about the chains completely. Covering up something that is distressing to you does nothing to get you away from the situation. Instead we need to pluck away the flowers, examine and critique our beliefs, until we can see the chains again and break free.  

Live and Let Live

Why is it that people tend to fight so often over religion? Why not ‘live and let live?’
It seems like such an easy concept. Simply live and let live. Ignore those who do not agree with you and they will do the same; if you do not harm them they won't harm you. Even so, we see countless cases of religions colliding throughout history, and even today, ending in very violent and deadly events. You would think that the same premise of naturalists and supernaturalist being able to set aside their differences and work together would apply in the same manner. Instead it would seem that when one religious group meets any other group that goes against their beliefs, they can not simply turn away. It is a problem that plagues out history. Perhaps it is because science can answer some questions that religion tends to dismiss and there are some questions that religion can give a more satisfying answer, like why people are killed in such horrific manners. However, when two different religions try to answer the same question they are often very different views, like different 'gods' or 'heavens.' In a way it acts as a much more direct attack on what a religion believes.

All Imputs

In order to come to a truly agreeable and reliable decision with neutrality, would we not have to include views and observations from all regions that apply to the problem?
If we wish to derive solutions by looking  at only observational facts it would only make sense to have a  representative from each view. I do not mean from both supernaturalist and naturalist, but rather from every group that could observe an event differently. For example, a person from a lower class may observe something in a completely different manner than someone from a higher class. We may all observe the same event but, even without supernatural or scientific thoughts, find a different meaning. So, when trying to come to the best solution for a problem we would have to look at every different angle to truly find the answer that would solve all aspects of the issue.

Satisfaction in Art

In class it was breifly mentioned that art was one of the most fufilling activies or hobbies. This is based off the idea that we find the most satisfaction from things that we must learn and work for. That being true, art is probalably the most staisfying. Not only does it usually take a very long time to learn and master, but it it has an endless spand of possibilites. There are countless mediums to learn and with each and every year there is some new form of art, from of visual expression, to learn and understand. There is no point in which the art world has stopped, it keeps on continuing, expanding, so there is always room to be more satisfied.

Time Travel and Determinism

The idea of determinism had me thinking of time travel. If, in the future, time travel was ever made possible it is logical, under the definition of determinism, that it would be an endless chain of events. Say that time travel was suddenly made possible and you went back to past to attempt to fix something you've done. If you follow the idea that every action in the universe is predetermined and on a set, unchangeable course, then time travel would be too. This means that no matter what, you were meant to time travel, and your actions while time traveling would not change anything because it was already determined to. Likewise your 'past self' would still follow the same path and take the same steps and course, going back in time. All in all it would be an endless chain and the fact that your 'future self' had gone back in would already have been detirmined and would have played a part in the 'origional' action.

Punishment and Determinism

Does determinism give a proper explanation and attention to punishment?
One of the biggest flaws in determinism is the idea of doing wrong and being punished for it. Determinism suggests that every action that we take and every happening in the universe has a set course that is unchangeable. In other words we have no control over what happens, no matter what we do the outcome would and will be always the same. But what about when some one commits murder? Of course we could also argue that this person was destined to go to jail. A person who is aware of the idea of determinism  easily argue in court that they had no choice but to kill an innocent person, that they were destined to do so, but that destroys our whole idea of justice. Can we be guilty and responsible for a crime if our choice is predetermined? What it boils down to is the fact that no human is able to even begin to comprehend what it would take to be able to truly predict what will happen in the universe next, and this knowledge is far beyond our reach. So even if the universe is determined we still live in the illusion of having choices, and under all circumstances we must still be held responsible for all of these choices, good or bad.

Influence of Choices

If free will exists, is there truly any choice that is unaffected by outside influence? Supposing that we have the ability to make a choice of one action over another, it is still very difficult to say that any choice goes without any outside influence. For example, I am hugely influenced to write this blog right now. Blogging for my course is a homework assignment, but we all know that that is not always a strong influence on a young student. Also weighing on my decision, is society's expectations to get good grades and do well in school, hopefully leading to a better job in the future, and I must complete the assignment to even come close to a good grade. This reasoning can be applied to the simplest decisions. Why brush your teeth? So people around you don't think your breath smells, or because society values healthy smiles. Why pick up trash in your home? So that you are not seen as a mess by your company. Even when it would seem that our choices would only affect ourselves, we still learn most of what we know from the people and world around us and all of this information that we take in helps us make every choice, it influences us. Therefore I believe that is basically impossible for someone to make a choice without any outside power affecting them. This does not mean that free will is impossible but it does change the sense of how free our choices really are.   

Underestimating Habit

In the reading Houchin states in relation to habits: "All you have to do is start doing good things reguarly, and before long you'll do them without thinking"(18). But in many cases that is not true, whether or not a person actually picks up a habit dependons on thier attitude towards actually learning it. For example, if a person were to hold open doors whenever they were around other people, friend or stranger, but were never thanked for thier actions, they might become irrated and discouraged and give up on holding the door open. Also, in some cases, no matter how many times a person might be taught or told to do the right thing, they can still be prone to do the wrong thing simply because they have no will to learn other wise.  In any case I belive that Houchin underestimates what it would takes to make yourself learn a good habit.

Response: Meghan's Selflessness

In response to: http://meeghanrose.blogspot.com/2012/02/selflessness.html
I also agree that selflessness is impossible, as is it is a figmant of the world's imagination. Everything you do, you are doing because you some part of you wants to. Every time you chose to do something, even reading this post, you are making a choices and whether you would like to admit to it or not, in some way, however minescule, you are benefiting from it. For example, you may say that it is selfless to donate to charity, but you can get enjoyment from it or you may do it because you feel like you should be charitible, both ideas are in thier own way self-interested. Even the most seemingly selfless actions, like risking your life to save another, are not truely selfless. You are making the choice to save them, you are doing it because some part of you wants to. So no there is no such thing as being selfless.

Altruistic and Virtuous

 Can you be altruistic but not virtuous? Altruistic fits in as sub category of virtue, in other words, an altruistic act is automatically a virtuous act. However this does not work the other way, not every virtuous act is altruistic. You can practice always telling the truth but even though this is a very worthy practice it is not altruistic, it is  usually not directly helping anyone else. Just because you do not fit into the idea of being altruistic does not mean that you are not a virtuous and morally good person, it simply means that your actions do not tend to focus on purley helping others.

Anonymous Charity

Is an anonymous and charitable action any more altruistic than one in which the people benefiting from the action know exactly who is helping them? I think the answerer to this question lies what motivation the reasoning behind staying anonymous. For instance, if you decided to donate money anonymously because you were too shy to face people, there is a much more self- interested interest than simply not caring about recognition. On the other hand, if a well known billionaire decided to give money to a charity and only gave about one million dollars they might be seen as selfish for only giving such a small sum of there riches. For that reason that person may decided to stay anonymous in order so that their donation would still be looked upon as being very generous. In that case their decision to stay anonymous would lean much farther towards being selfish, rather than simply self- interested. So I do not believe that a person is specifically more altruistic to remain anonymous and while a person's decision to remain as an anonymous detonator can in fact be very self-interested, I believe that the action of donating in the first place remains an altruistic act.  

Isolation Impossible

In class we discussed how humans are social beings. This lead to the idea that we cannot survive without one another. Even if you trapped yourself in your home and were never to come out again you still would be dependent on others. Just look around you; our lives are filled with things that other people make. The clothes on your back, the chair you are sitting in, the computer your are reading this blog on, all of it has been touched by another human before arriving where it is now. Even when you build something you use tools and materials made and produced by other people all over the world. If you were to be picked right now and thrown onto a deserted island it would still be impossible to escape the influence of other people. At this day and age we know how to survive in 'the wild' because we observed other people doing so or teaching us. We would have some sort of  an idea of how to make a fire or shelter because someone else already learned how to for us.
 We live in a world where nothing can be done without the influence or resources that other people share with us, we are dependent upon each other making isolation impossible.

A Common Thread

"[Aristotle] says that we can all agree that there is such an end, and that we call it ‘happiness,’but we may disagree about what happiness actually is”(98) but is there a common thread in peoples’ definition of happiness? We could say that people can be happy when surround by friends and loved ones. At the same time we could claim that an addict could be happy when they feed their addiction. Ultimately we are usually happy doing something that we see as pleasurable. However Aristotle argues that in order to be truly happy they need to be doing something that is fulfilling, that exercises the abilities that that person has learned and enjoy. This is perhaps why the people who claim to be the happiest are those whop were able to get a job that they can truly enjoy and feel as if they are doing something in. Perhaps then the common thread to true happiness is that not only does something bring some one a sort of pleasure but a sense of fulfillment as well.

Friendship

Aristotle claimed that friendship is“only possible with a few people; moreover it can only really exist between good people" (106).  But I question if that is a truly valid statement. The idea of only good people having true friends is an understandable statement. If you met someone and started to get to know them and then found out that you did not agree with how they acted towards you or any other people you would probably not continue to see them or would only remain acquaintances with them. In this manner friendships are more likely to be formed, and remain in good standing, if each party sees the other as 'a good person.' As for the idea of only being able to be friends with a few people: I believe that it would depend on how good of a person you are towards others and how many good people you actually are able to meet.

I'm Not Listening

When talking about how Aristotle was rather narrow minded when it came to slavery, women and "barbarians" the authors make a very interesting statement towards the reader. They write: "But this should not prejudice us against the rest of [Aristotle's] thinking" (97). This got me thinking about how often people tend to do that. You will learn that a person disagrees with you on idea like religion, women's rights or in this case slavery, and dismiss every other idea that they believe. We turn away and say "I'm not listening to another word," no matter how valid their other ideas may be. In a way it is a very childish thing to do and yet we see it happen everyday with adults, even country to country. For instance, there are many Middle Eastern countries that we disagree with on how a country should run, but if we looked past our discrepancies we may see that women have been appointed countless times as president or prime minister while back in the United States women are horribly represented in our government. So even though you and another person may not to see eye to eye on every issue there is no reason to discredit every single one of their ideas.    

Response to Osa: The Cave

Here is link to the original post: http://thenatureofhumannature-osa.blogspot.com/2012/02/cave.html

I believe that if you compare many religions, beliefs or philosophies, you can find similarities. Many of these world religions are based around the idea of finding some sort of truth, whether it be in the form of reason or freedom of sins. No matter what we believe, we are almost always striving to find some explanation for our lives on this earth. We desperately want to explain what we do not know. Why are we here? What happens after we die? To try to cope with and answer these unknowns we prescribe a way of life. Plato said that we need to follow reason to let ourselves out of "the cave." In Christianity people are taught to not sin (or ask for forgiveness when you do) and follow the word of the Lord.  When you do these things you are leading the "perfect life," understanding the ultimate truth (leading an examined life) or gaining the favor of the Lord and therefore a favorable afterlife. 

So yes I do see the similarities and if you look closer at other beliefs, religion or philosophy, you will find even more.

What about different views?

Plato envisioned that in a perfect society philosophers would rule and ultimately govern over the less intelligent and reasonable people. These philosopher kings were supposed to be lovers of wisdom who would not ,because of their knowledge and reasoning, give in to temptation. We would hope that all of these philosopher kings would come from different backgrounds and there fore have different ideas and opinions on problems. But Plato is a little vague on how exactly these kings would work together. For instance what if the philosopher kings disagree on how to solve a problem? Who is supposed to decide which is correct? When addressing this idea the book says: "Plato hopes to use rational argument... But when someone thinks they know the ultimate truth about such questions of value and policy, they may be intolerant of anyone who disagrees, and may feel justified in forcing their view on others" (86). If all of these kings are supposed to have an ultimate understanding of things and reason has brought them to that very conclusion there is no one to decide which of the king's has the best solution and which truth should be accepted by all. This is one of the fatal flaws in Plato's plans that he seems to neglect to acknowledge or solve.

Passing of Reason

Plato said that his Philosopher Kings would be selected to breed and their children would then be raised by the community and nurses. Even if the true parent of one of these children ever met their child, neither party would know that they were related. According to Plato's plan these children would be raised within a life of reason, but Plato himself said that we need a balance of Reason, Spirit, and Appetite in order to be well rounded individuals. In the situation that Plato describes, the children of the Philosopher Kings would most likely have a very weak Spirit and Appetite because they would never have a solid parental figure to learn from and have emotions towards, a relationship that it has been agreed upon in many studies that children need. (While you do not necessarily need your actual biological parent to have any part in your life I do believe you need some sort of stable mentor figure.) Even if this did work and the child grew up with perfectly reasonable emotions there is nothing to say that they would have the same amount of reason or intellect as their parents, especially if they were never allowed to be taught by them. However good Plato's intentions were with this proposition it simply would not work the way he hoped.

A Little Flaw

In chapter four it is mentioned that: "Plato thought it absurd to give every person an equal say, when most people- in his view- do not know what is best" (83) in relationship with democracy. Although I believe Plato takes the idea much too far, he does bring up a valid point. Our government's system is built off of everyone getting a equal say and all participating in voting and voicing their opinions. But what happens when an uneducated person votes? What if they only know what they have seen on TV commercials for the candidates? When that happens and people vote without truly knowing anything about their options they might as well be picking a name randomly out of a hat. I am not trying to say that people should not be allowed to vote, instead I urge that before anyone even considers actually going to the polls to vote, that they truly know what they are choosing for their state or country.

Turning Away from Death

Our class discussion on science reminded me of a very similar idea in sociology. We discussed that science, as a whole, can never be 100% proven. Scientists can only work from what they can observe and although the can make assumptions based on those observations there are always factors that will be unknown. Even so, people tend to take up these theories and ideas and hold them as the absolute truth. When evidence is presented to them that could possibly prove them wrong they try to ignore them or give reason that it is invalid. This act of turning away from anything that could disprove your believes is something parts of humanity have perfected. In sociology it has been observed that almost every culture or religion was based off a way of dealing with death. Being the only species that can not only reflect on our past, but also idealize our future, we forever have the knowledge that we will eventually die, at the same time we don't know what happens next. To help us deal with this we build up ideas and methods to deal with this unknown. As a society, when these ideas of ours are challenged in any way we commonly feel threatened and do anything to defend out ideas. Our first reaction is to simply ignore them, dismiss the challenger as 'crazy' or hopeless and turn away from them. If that doesn't work we try to covert them, convince them that we are right. As a last result we  resort to violence, we see no other option but than to eliminate those who are opposing us. I'm am certain that if you look deeply  into the history of many wars you will find  that the sides fighting had different ideals and cultures in one way or another. Perhaps it is in part our nature to stubbornly stand by our ideals, no matter what evidence is there to prove us wrong.

How we learn Morality

Many times during our discussions in class, and again while reading the text, the question of how we learn morals has been brought up. The argument is commonly between whether we must be taught our morals or we learn them by simply being a conscious human. These two options are always pitted against each other, but after thinking on the subject I believe that in that, you need to have a combination.

A note before I go further: Some may argue with me that I am forgetting religion as a source of morals but in order to understand and learn the ways of any religion you mush first be taught them. So for the conversation right now, let us say that religion is a method to teach morals.

While we are still very young, some of our morals can be taught to us by our parents or by myths and stories (even in the format of a book or film). If we were told a story in which a character steals an apple from a grocery vendor and then was caught and punished, we would be subsequently learning that stealing is wrong because punishment follows the action. The same thing with cheating, lying, and swearing( for most people). 

At the same time once we reach a certain age and can understand the fact that eventually we will die, we realize that no person wants to die either and so there is an unmentioned agreement between most human beings (except under sever circumstances) to not kill each other. Such is that the moral to kill each other is learned.  This is the same with many other species, they will not kill each other (or sometimes even other animals) unless there is an undeniable and unavoidable threat.

This combination of morals simply inherieted by instinct and taught (by the world around us) is nessicary for a well rounded person.

Selfish vs Self Interest

Confucius believed  very heavily that in order to follow the Decree of Heaven you must be able to do something for nothing or "Acting in order to do what is right, rather that what is profitable," (16). I questioned this statement wondering if it was truly possible for someone to do something for simply moral reasons, in such a way that they gain nothing. My initial reaction was 'no, we would only ever do something that we would potentially gain from.' After talking about this very issue in class I discovered that it was a very large debate among scholars and the true issue the Confucius was concerned with was selfishness versus self interest.
Even if you do something like charity, giving your own time to help an organization like a homeless shelter, or giving money to a fundraiser, you always gain something. When people are asked why they do volunteer at a homeless shelter a common response is 'because helping people makes me feel good' or 'I want to help people.' These seem like perfectly innocent and selfless acts, but as soon as you add makes me or I want you are doing it fill your own desires.
But is this not exactly what Confucius preached; that we need to practice benevolence? There is no way to escape seeming somewhat selfish. As humans we are programmed to be so and there is nothing we can do about it. For some, this can be a very agitating thought, so let me put it in different terms for you. What Confucius warned against was taking actions that were profitable in the sense that you would gain money, or a higher position, or profit financially in any way (what we will call selfish). Instead he wished for people to take actions to help other people because they want to and it is the right thing to do, yes there is still self interest there but it is much different.
So be at ease, as humans we can not escape doing something without some sort of self interest but that is perfectly fine.

A Tad Stubborn....

Reading into Confucianism, I cannot help but think that Confucius was very persistent, if not a little stubborn. Now I do not say this to insult his ideals and ways, but rather I admire the fact that he did not give up on what he believed. Countless times in the text it is mentioned that what Confucius truly wanted, for every person to follow the way of the Sages and in turn abide by the Decree of Heaven, was nearly impossible. In fact, he himself declared "I have no hope of meeting a sage" (VII.26). Although he did believe that every person held inside themselves the potential to be a sage, he also recognized that it was a truly uncommon occurrence for anyone to actually become one. Realizing this I would think that many would turn away or reconsider their ideas. Instead, Confucius continued to teach his ideas in hopes that one day "If all people would follow this Way...Individuals would achieve perfection, society would be radically transformed and benevolence would rule" (21).

 So even though I may question some of Confucianism's prescriptions, I applaud Confucius himself for continuing on against the odds.

Imagination

In the Philosophy Tool kit the idea of 'Imagination and Feeling' caught my eye. I truly agree that reason lacks focus without imagination. In fact I believe it is valid to argue that without imagination you can never reach your true potential under any circumstances. This is because if you can't see,or imagine, a future beyond where you already are, you can never reach the next level. When reasoning about any subject you cannot find a valid answer or solution unless you can build off of what you already know and imagine all the possibilities. As far as feeling is concerned I cannot fathom how you could do anything without feeling unless you were actually a cardboard cutout.

Me in text

Hi there! My name is Emily. I'm an art major and freshman at Massachusetts's College of Liberal Arts. I have not found my dream job or career but I can't imagine a life without art. I grew up in central MA, just minutes away from the beautiful Quabbin reservoir. I enjoy a wide variety of music but I tend to gravite towards British bands such as Coldpaly and Mumford and Sons. I also play the flute and was learning to play the violin. I have always enjoyed watching anime and reading manga. Aside from graphic novels some of my favorite authors include J.R.R. Tolkien, Markus Zusak, and J.K. Rowling. Although I will always enjoy the world depicted by pencil or paint I also really enjoy photography and am a member of the North Quabbin Viewfinders Camera Club.

That is all I can think to share for now, I look forward to seeing you here again. Enjoy. :)