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.