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.