In Response to Misty's Post

"Would you give up your feelings and your life if it meant no more suffering? if it changed the way you lived and thought?"

I think that suffering is a necessary part of every life, and that life wouldn't be "life" without it. Suffering helps us appreciate all of the things that make us happy. Giving up feeling all together I think would be even worse than suffering. What use is life/thought if we can't truly experience it through emotion? Emmotion and feelings are what drive us to live and pursue our desires, though it is true that they also bring us sadness when we are not successful in reaching our goals, or when we experince loss. Please excuse my cheesy reference, but to me, the idea of being void of feelings whould put me in the same state as the Harry Potter villian Voldemort (though not necessarily as evil.) He is notorious for being unfased by the death and suffering of others, even his own followrs, but thoughout the books Harry Potter claims to pitty Voldemort for not being able to experience love and friendship.

What are some good philospohical books you have read and would reccomend?

Piggybacking on my post on Megan's post

Spekaing of the vastness of the uviverse, I found this interesting webpage with some interesting images on the topic. Enjoy.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2AKPqN/www.postimage.org/image.php%253Fv%253Dgx1G8GWS

My Theory of Human Nature (an addition to my other two posts for this week)

My current theory of human nature is all about finding balance. I like to think of each person’s personality/choices in the way Plato describes them: in terms of having a rational side and an emotional side, only my theory suggests that everyone needs to balance the two equally to maintain the “good life.” This could be looked at from a scientific perspective in terms of humans being left-brained versus right-brained, but overall I don’t believe that my theory can be explained from a scientific perspective (a possible downfall.) We need to be practical for survival purposes, and to keep society running smoothly, but I think that satisfying emotional inklings is equally important. We can’t have one in the absence of the other. After all, if we don’t enjoy and appreciate the life we are given, what is its purpose? This aspect of my theory of human nature was somewhat taken from the chapter we read on existentialism. We all, inevitably are going to die, and there is nothing we can do about it, therefore we must enjoy what we have now. My theory of human nature does not directly address the questions of afterlife or fate vs. freewill (another possible fault,) but instead requests that we accept that these questions will forever (in this life) remain unanswered. It does not deny, or encourage, the choosing of a particular religion since there is no evidence to prove or deny the existence of a God/ greater power/afterlife one way or another. Though, my theory of human nature does support the idea of something like a soul, that enables us to reflect independently on our choices, follow unique paths, have unique personalities/interests, and be attracted to different people/lifestyles. What happens to this “soul” after death is a complete mystery. All that we can be sure of is that we exist, because we are conscious, so we must do the most we can with what we have, and what we are sure of, but not without morals. I believe that by being privileged with the potential to live a good life comes with the notion that others are equally deserving of this opportunity. Not only should we strive for emotional/rational well being, but we should help others, or at least be respectful of others’ decision to do the same, as you would have them do for you. This leads to the debate over whether we, as humans, are innately good or evil. In my opinion, we are born neutral, and evil comes from the disrespecting of others’ desires to have a good life unless those desires happen to harm others or their moral goals etc. It seems that very few people do evil simply for the sake of being evil, but rather to fulfill selfish desires. I believe that this comes from our being animals, we are inclined to put ourselves before others for survival reasons, as this was probably necessary in earlier times.

Q:What is your opinion on this? What are some other faults to my theory? Are there any other things you would like me to address?

Since we've had so many posts on immortality and life...

"Geneticists Discover a Way to Extend Lifespans to 800 Years"
(Well, they're working on it)

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2Wpb9F/io9.com/345728/geneticists-discover-a-way-to-extend-lifespans-to-800-years

What do you think of this?

Response to Ausin's Blog

"Living a good life in this world is very difficult for many people. Do you think that there will ever be a world peace for everyone to have a good life?"

I don't think that is possible to have a perfect life, just as they like it, simply because we all have different opinions and perspectives that interfere with each other, but I think that we each have the potential to satisfy at least some our goals. This topic brings me to what I will be discussing in my book review next week on Philip Zimbardo's book on the Stanford Prison experiment. He looks at good and evil as differing perspectives rather than entities, and claims that we can only understand and transform one or the other by somehow gaining a glimpse of that perspective, rather than by immediately attacking an other's views. I think a greater number of people could experience "the good life" if everyone was more open-minded and respectful of others perspectives, though it is very important to hold close your own beliefs and understand your own reasons for them.

What do you think is the best path to "a good life" for the greatest number of people?

In response to Megan's Question

Q: "Is there something else really out there?"

In my opinion, it seems there must be. The universe is just so vast that it wouldn't make sense for us to be the only ones in existence. I don't necessarily think little green men make art in our crop fields, but I believe that there is more to the universe than what goes on on our tiny planet. I couldn't explain it, though. I think it is in our nature to believe in greater forces/beings/worlds/lives than the ones we experience, and that is in part how we have come up with concepts of Gods and afterlives. As hard as we try to explain everything in terms of religion and science, there is still so much that we don't know, and that we will probably never know, but still, we are compartmentalizing creatures and do our best to explain what we can. I tend to think anything is possible.

Q:Do you think the mysteries of the universe are better kept a mystery? Would you want to know them all if you could?

Discussion on Faith

In class this week we spent some time discussing the concepts of faith, belief, trust, doubt etc. A popular idea presented in our class suggested that faith is the trust in the absence of doubt, and that doubt diminishes faith. Though this is true in a very obvious sense (we can’t have complete faith in something if we doubt its existence,) I think that having some doubt builds a more secure, earnest faith. As we discussed in class, if there is a God, he/she gave us intellect and the ability to reason, and would want us to question what others tell us, rather than believe blindly. Having knowledge of the weaknesses and strengths of each religion we may be considering helps us make more informed decisions, and since statistics say that people are typically born into their chosen religions, I doubt any “all good” God would condemn an individual for being born into the “wrong” culture. Being skeptical of certain aspects of a religion doesn’t necessarily mean that faith is not present, but that the faith that is present is more sincere because it exists in spite of doubt.

Q:(Off-topic) What was your favorite class discussion this semester in NHN?

Response to Cronin's question

Q "When you can live forever, what do you live for?"

If I were to choose immortality, I would simply do it for all the experiences that I would not be able to have with the normal, human lifespan(which is much too short in my opinion). I would travel as much as possible, and study different subjects at a all different schools. I am interested in almost every possible major, and so wish that I could study all of them. I would, overtime, learn how to play all sorts different instruments and work on a variety of other artistic skills. I would meet generations of different people, and form memorable relationships with them. In a way, having immortality could be looked at as having many consecutive lives rather than one endless one. There are so many different cultures and lifestyles in the world that it would not be possible to experience them all in one human lifetime. I would have the opportunity to see the world change overtime, over a much larger span than I would otherwise. I would take more chances, not fearing death. Honestly, I don't think I choose immortality in reality, it would be much too sad to see all the people I meet grow old and die. I think it would be unsettling to see all the places I have lived change so much while I remain the same. Though it would be fantastic and wonderful to have an infinite number of experiences, it just seems unnatural. Maybe if I could just extend my life an extra couple hundred years or so...

Q:What do you think is the ideal lifespan? (Disregarding all the spacial problems that would arise from each human on earth living three or four times their expected lifespan... but maybe people would have fewer children if this were the case, and wait longer to have them...hmm this could be a huge benifit to society, we would have more experienced people having children, and possibly an overall more intelligent/ progressive race.. or maybe not. Soory for going off on another tangent, but you are welcome to comment on that thought if you so wish.)

Immortality

I had an interesting time this evening discussing the idea of immortality with a few of my fellow NHN classmates. Though the topic may be straying from what we have been talking about in class, but not necessarily from philosophy in general, it never fails to attract interest and attention. Since I assumed that we wouldn't have the opportunity to discuss this in class before the end of the semester, I thought the class blogs would be an appopriate place to bring it up, and asking people whether or not they would choose immortality over "normal" existence is always a great discussion starter. These are some of the points/questions that were brought up in our discussion this evening:
What does the term immortality mean to you? Does immortality suggest that we never die, or instead that we have the ability to live forever but are susceptible to death (ex- being murdered.) Does being immortal involve aging? If given the option of living an "immortal" lifestyle, would it be unique to you, or would others be able to join you?
For me, a major drawback would be outliving friends/family over and over again, and the possibility of missing out on any interesting afterlife that may exist.

Would you choose immortality?

Absurdity and Existentialism: yet another attempt to see the glass half-full

I think the absurdity of life (as described by the existentialists in our text) can be a positive thing if chooses to make it so. I don't necessarily agree that life is meaningless in the "not worth living" aspect, but I like the idea that there is no specific end point that we should all strive to reach. There are no expectations to be met. Life shouldn't be a competition over who makes the most money, who is the most famous, or who is the most skillful. In the end, our lives are all equal in value and we are all free to do what we like with what we have. It teaches us to enjoy the "stepping stones" and not concentrate so much on our destinations. The scenario described in the text, of the woman mindlessly wasting her time over a meaningless job, and sitting on a couch watching television with the remainder of her time, is indeed a depressing example of the absurdity of life. I don't think this example necessarily has to serve to describe everyone's "absurd" life, but instead is an incentive not to void your life of experiences. As far as we know, each of us is given one life to work with. Because our existence is the only thing we are certain of, it would be absurd to waste or destroy it. On page 194 of the text, it is explained that the religious philosopher Kierkegarrd believed that "alienating ourselves from what we inwardly sense is a hint of God's vioce." If we were to constantly follow our inward senses, we might very well find ourselves settling into uninteresting lives, that many before us have mindlessly experienced themselves. Challenging ourselves to try new things makes own individual existences unique and stimulating, and give us personal sense of value. The overall message, I think, of the absurdity of existentialism, is that no matter what we do with our lives, they will all eventually end, so we might as well enjoy what we have, take advantage of our opportunities, and not let ourselves be kept having these experiences in fear of leaving our "comfort zones." What gives life value and importance is up to the individual.What, in your opinion, is the most valuable aspect of life? What makes it worth living (keeping in mind the absurd existentialist perspective)?

Theories of attraction continued

I few years ago on the discovery or history channel, I watched a very interesting program on "the psychology of attraction." One section of this program discussed how individuals in relationships frequently look similar to their significant other, and how studies have shown that we tend to be attracted to people who look similar to ourselves. While thinking about the Odeipus complex and our tendencies to be drawn towards people like our parents that I wrote in my last blog, I was thinking about how it could be related to this theory of attraction, and came to a similar conclusion. We may be drawn to people who look similar to us, simply because thats what we are accustomed to seeing, that is what we are comfortable with, like we are drawn to careers that our parents/siblings follow. I think that this theory of attraction ould also be extended to hobbies, clothing styles, and personal beliefs, which is how we forms relationships, not exclusively romantic ones, with people similar to us.

Also as we discussed in class, I don't necessarily think this always must be the case. Just like we should experience a variety of subjects before choosing the same career paths as our parents, we should befriend a variety of people, and have a variety of experiences, outside of what we are accustomed to, so we can decide personally what is best for us, rather than simply what we are farmiliar with. In doing this, we give ourselves the opportunity to create our own, unique paths.

How important is it that we maintain or break apart (depending on what your views are) our comfort zones?

Response to Megan's Post

Q: "Do you agree with my former high school teacher? That we subconsciously look for traits of our parents in our future spouses, or possible spouses? Basically the person you are dating at the time..."

I could understand how this would be the case for many. This scenario reminds me of the conversation we had in class this past Friday on how we subconsciously tend to follow similar careers/religious paths to those of our parents/ older siblings. Growing up, when we think of going to college of finding a job, we automatically think of what those closest to us have done, simply because thats what we have been exposed to the most. It would make sense that we would be drawn to individuals who have similar characteristics as our parents when looking for a spouse, because our parents are typically who we think of when we think of nuturing/raising a child. Also, our parents are theoretically people who have cared deeply for us, and are people that we feel very comfortable around. Who wouldn't what these qualities in a future spouse?

Might this work in the reverse fashion for parents/siblings we don't get along with?

"Designer Babies"

This post may be a little off-topic as far as Freud and dream-analysis goes, but I thought the discussion could be applicable to the course as a whole. So, here it is.

A couple years ago I wrote a paper on the topic of "designer babies," and the potential option for parents to choose their children's genetic traits at fertility clinics. Apparently with the biotechnology we have now, we can already choose the gender of children, and avoid traits for a small handful of serious genetic diseases. These advances in science technology are making many people start to wonder how far science can take us in the process gene selection of our offspring. Some ponder over a time when we will be able to genetically alter things like body-type, or IQ. I think debating over the ethics of this possibility can potentially be very interesting, even if these advances may still be far out of our reach. What parents wouldn't want the absolute best for their child, if it were in reach? Would this upset balances in nature? What are some other concerns?

Here is a link to one article on the topic:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html
There are many of these to be found on the web.

Freud and Pansexuality

Though Freud's claims on sexuality being our only drive for existence and our actions are somewhat startling, I think he was onto something. During his lifetime, the idea of evolution and species progression were not as popular, because not as much was known about them. As much as the media glamorizes and alters the original conceptions of sex, its primary, and most straightforward, purpose is to serve as a means to reproduce, and pass on genes from one generation to the next. It would make sense from a biological perspective that sex is a strong motivation and a large part of our subconscious mind. Our culture doesn't even remotely try to disguise the human desire for sex, as we often see it in magazines, on television, in movies, in music etc. So, even though Freud's seem very "out there," I belief there is some scientific bases to his ideas, or at least some of them. Though every dream we have may not be related to sexual desires, sexuality is undeniably a significant part of the human experience for many.

What do you think of Freud's views on pansexuality?

Response to Karla's Post

Q: "Would you prefer a night without dreams, or with dreams? Why?"

Personally, I prefer nights with dreams. Like many, while dreaming I mistake the contents of my dream for reality, and do not realize what is "real" unil waking. I think it is fascinating that in our dreams we have the sensation of experinecing a different sort of reality, that can often be realted to our conscious reality. We are often able to percieve, observe, and interact with what we see in our dreams despite our being still and asleep in our beds. I, like many, believe that life is much too short, and that it is sad that a large portion of our existance must be spent unconscious (although the sensation of rest can be very gratifying.) For me, dreams allow me to continue having thought-provoking and emotional experiences despite my unconsciousness. I do not think it is always necessary to find meaning in them, but rather that they are interesting to reflect on, and be part of.

If you could control all of the events/surroundings in your dreams, would you? Would this make dreams any less interesting? How might dreams we have when we are asleep be compared to daydreams?

Respone to Meg

Q: "Why do we have phrases like "follow your heart," "gut instinct," etc? Why is it not listen to what your mind tells you?"

I think that we have these phrases to create balance. In society today, so much emphasis is placed on being practical., and "listening to what our minds tell us." Many people tend to make choices based on what is simple, what will make money, and what increases social status. The media seems to tell us that there is an equation to happiness that is composed mainly of money, sex, expensive cars/houses, and external beauty. In my opinion, this leaves little room for passion or individuality, but it seems to be in our nature to organize the concept of happiness into a step-process. Looking back on Plato and the greeks, reason was regarded as the most divine part of our nature. Having phrases like "follow your heart" remind us of our individual, less reasonable, thoughts and desires. They serve as a reminder for us to appreciate the simpler things in life, and to enjoy what we already have from our nature, rather than what our rational thoughts tell us is necessary. After all, we are all unique, and we all have different things that make us happy, aside from what the media depicts.

How might we define rational?

Equality and Individuality

This week while discussing Marx and communism, I spent a lot of time thinking about what would make the "ideal society" in terms of leadership, community etc... It seems that the most obvious factor keeping humans from existing harmoniously together is simply difference in opinion, skill, or wealth. Communism does seem appealing to extent in the way that it should, in theory, unite people despite their differences. My theory, however, is that as long as the differences still exist, there will always be conflict and jealousy in society. We could try to elimate imalances in wealth and social status through Communism but there will always be differences in appearance, physical ability, and capability to learn certain skills. In middle school, I had to read a very strange, but interesting, short story (I don't remember the name) about a society in which these difference were to be eliminated. Former dansers had to wear sand bags on their ancles, and news reporters with attractive voices had to disguise their speech. Needless to say, the story ended in chaos. I believe we are destined to be in conflict with eachother to the end of time, because there is no way to eliminate all of our differences.
Even if we could, would we really want to?
Our differences make us unique, and life would be uninteresting without them (in my opinion)
The very popular story "The Giver" also comes to mind.

Interesting Philosophical Quotes

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1RaPDx/www.pangloss.com/

Post some of your favorites if you so wish.

Response to Nicole's Post

Q: Can someone believe they are unhappy when they really are [happy]?

I think happiness depends almost completely on mind-set, or "beliefs." People can understand that they are better-off than others in physiscal states ex-economically,health-wise, but it seems that "happiness" has a lot to do with how content/appreciative someone is with what we have. It was brought up in class the other day that celebraties will claim to be "unhappy" despite their having immense wealth/ access to a variety of opportunitites that would not be available to the general public. It had also been brought up that people always tend to want was is just beyond their reach, and when they achieve their goals, they continue to long for more. So basically, an individual can have all the wealth/social gratification in the world and still not be content, while on the other hand, it is possible to have only moderate/minimal amounts of those things and to feel "happy" out of appreciation for them.

So, if this "happiness machine" did really exist, what might you see/perceive by stepping into it? (In other words, what would make you the most happy?)

Response to Austin's Blog

Q: Do you think defining yourself with just one definition would be a useful thing to do?





Personally, I think it is impossible to come up with a solid, constant, definition to describe myself or any other individual. People are constantly growing and changing because of people they meet and experiences they have. Even a person with a very distinct personality may behave differently in a given situation because fo his/her mood. I think that making an attempt to describe oneself is uselful, it is a chance to assess past choices and examine thoughts that might not have been brought to mind otherwise. For example, if I were trying to determine if I were a courageous person, I might want to look back on past adventures and situations where I have been open-minded. Thinking about this might lead me to a sense accomplishment, feelings of regret, or content with things as they have been. We can draw conclusions based on tendencies, but we always have potential to change, and are constantly doing so.

Most words that we might use to describe ourselves as individuals are
pretty vague (ex-clam, nice, moody, excitable, sincere.) I believe that on of the ways we can define ourselves best is through our experiences, and what we take from them, for those are truly unique to us.

What do you think is the best way to go about describing yourself?

Response to Platolotics

I do agree that many social groups are under-represented, and that placing people from those groups in powerful positions would cause significant change that would eventually benifit the greater good. One major problem in our society is that so many people fail to recognize, or choose not to recognize, that these social differences exist. As Americans, many like to believe that we live in a classless society, and that we are free to work towards our goals despite economic and social differences. It has practically been our motto since we became a "free country"

In my opinion, ignorance is one of the most destructive problems that we are facing. These wealthy officials who promise a better tomorrow are elected because the public glorifies them, naively puts them on a pedestal, and assumes that they will do all that they say. Who doesn't want to believethat by checking one box over another, all of our societal problems will be solved? Everyone needs to remember that even the most powerful officials are just as human as anyone else, are are capable of error and insincerity in their thoughts, speech, and actions. It is our job as citizens to actively pay attention to what is going on in the world, and to voice our opinions. It is silly to depend solely on the actions of a small handful of people, and expect everything to turn out just as we like it.

Ignorance: what's the appeal?

Q: Is it dangerous to live life solely on faith?

I would say that it depends on one's interpretation of faith (though I suppose that answer is only slightly more helpful than the answer to the question: "Are sports dangerous," when I relply, "Only the ones that can potentially cause you bodily harm.") But it just depends on personal beliefs and interpretations. In a previous blog post I brought up how it is possible that people may be driven to extreame methods to eliminate evil, which may not be healthy (for anyone). Also, it is not always possible to put oneself before others, for survival reasons, because we need food, and rest, and hygiene to survive on our own before we do so (for example, Jesus' 40 days in the desert without food and water might not be possible for the average person).But if we simply care for others to the fullest extent possible without causing ourselves serious bodily or emotional harm, having faith is not too dangerous. Though it is not somthing we spend much time thinking about today, in our culture anyway, is the idea of dying for one's religion. During Jesus' lifetime, and for some time after, those believing in Jesus' divinity were supposedly questioned about their beliefs, and would have to make life-altering choices in the form of their reply. In theory, one would honestly state their religious beliefs even when faced with death, if they were live solely on fath. In this case, living solely on faith could be quite lethal. But one could argue that those individuals could be equally faithful by telling one, potentially life-saving, lie: "No, I don't belive Jesus is the son of God," and then spend the rest of their lives, that would have been ended abruptly, helping others, and spreading their faith. So, it just depends.

Is lying cowardly?

Socraties, Sophists, and Selfishness

It seems that one of the major differences between Sophist views and Socratic views are their take on "winning" and selfishness. In class, we have criticized the sophists for being conceited and materialistic, because of their idea of living the good life is "winning" and being successful. The Socratic view is very similar, only its idea of sucess is more focused on the benifit of the soul. Since the Sophists were relativists, meaning that they believed the determinatition of what is "good" or "evil" depends on the individual, this concept could be extended to individuals who seek moral success as a means of personall success by assisting others and doing good, just as Socraties suggested.

A theory that has become semi-popular in the world of human nature is that we, as humans, act completely out of selfishness (this was brought to mind by the Sophist view on "winning" one's own game of life). The first reaction people have to this theory is that it is unbelieveable, because so many people do charity work, and other things to benifit fellow human beings. To argue this, one might say that humans do charity work to feel better about themselves. If this were the case, then it might also be said that people do apparently selfless things in a selfish effort to be selfless. And with so many people believing in religions that promise afterlife to "good" and "selfless" souls, who would not wan't to appear selfless, just in case. In the end, doesn't it all seems to come down to personal success? Its a survival, and philosophical instinct. We don't like to think of ourselves as selfish creatures, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, especially for those whose personal goals involve being good, caring, intelligent human beings.

Does this any sense? Do you think humans are capable of completely selfless acts? Why/ why not?

Respone

Q "Why is it that violence and crime have such a seductive effect on the human mind?"


I think that the reason for violence and crime being seductive is simply that they are forbidden in modern society. We always seem to want what we can't have. It is in our human nature to be inquisitive, and to know all that we can about the world around us. We don't like to be limited in our life experiences, and for many, I think this calls for a taste of the "dark side." Another reason for this might be a result of our "natural tendencies, as mammals. In nature, most creatures have a tendency to present agression and violence in face of conflict. In modern day society, we are told to forgive, forget, and to be decent, so, as a result, we find less destructive ways to take out our anger. Though it is not my personal taste, many claim that playing violent video games and watching violent films releases this natural tension. Each to his own.

What are some other reasons why forbidden things might be so appealing?

An Angry God

In class this week we have spent a little time discussing the ridiculous concept of starting war over religious conflicts when religions so often preech peace, love, equality, and forgiveness. During my Catholic upbringing, I was often suprised by the all the death and violence found in biblical stories brought about by God himself. For example, in the story of the great flood, God becomes so dissapointed angry with the outcome of humanity that he floods the whole earth, killing all but a select few. What happened to love and forgiveness? The same could be said for the 7 plagues of Egypt. It could be argued that God was simply eliminating the evil in the world, but is that not what people of different religions believe when they kill others? And it seems pretty obvious that even in these biblical stories, innocent lives were lost, which would seem inexcusable to most religions. By the way, I am not criticizing the bible's teachings in any way, I just like to analyze and interpret things from a variety of perspectives.

In your opinion, could God's actions have been justified? Could God's seemingly violent nature be the cause of war-like conflicts amoung different religions? In your opinion, could the "Garden of Eden" as described in the Bible, be the perfect place it was claimed to be if evil (the snake) existed in it? Why/why not?

Fate Vs. Freewill

Q: "Do you believe that we have a chance to change our destiny, our fate?"

It depends on how you look at fate. We only have one existance on earth (that we are aware of,) and I personally think of this as our fate, and that it has potential to take a variety of twists and turns. The knowledge of whether or not we can change our fate is unimportant, because, ultimately we can only occupy one space at any given moment in time, and wherever we end up at any given moment is our fate. Unless we were to invent a time machine, each choice we make is permanent, and irreversable, and therefore our fate. I don't necessarily think that our fate is predetermined, but if it is, I suppose it wouldn't really matter, unless we were to have the knowledge of what is to come. Would you feel any differently about your life if you were told that the events that will occur tomorrow, will indeed occur tomorrow, without your knowing what those events enatil? Probably not. In response to the question, I belive that the choices we make do affect our overall fate, but not necessarily in the way we indend them to. We live in a certain amount of uncertainty. Very seldom do our choices yield the results we expect. I think an important aspect of fate is our our choices correspond with nature, and the choices of other people and things. One could argue that fate is the overlapping, mingling, and conflicting interaction of the choices of others- along with their results, and further interactions. Even if fate is predetermined, all of these happenings are necessary to yield the final outcome.

Why are humans intimidated by the idea of predetermined fate? Are they? Why/why not?

Nature Vs. Nuture, Divine Vs. Developed

Many seem to think that we, as humans, have more complex thought thought processes than other species. I feel that this discussion could be tied into the conversations we have been having in class on the debate over "nature vs. nurture." It could be argued that influences brought on by "nurture" are really "natural" because of their origins. It could be argued that the concept of civilization, and society, was developed along with our species as part of our nature. But how did all this come about? From an evolutionary perspective, there is little explanation for many of our customs, and our ability as humans to self-reflect. For example, why do we enjoy art and theatre? Why do we want to study Philosophy? Why are so inclined to follow religion? Why do we feel the need to reject many of our animal instincts? I think that religion explains a lot of this. The concept of "original sin" could represent our natural tendency to be uncivilized, and behave as we please, to our own benifit. The promise of a life after death leads us to be "good," and "thoughtful." Our ability do do so was bestowed upon us by a God-like force. But where did religion originate? This is a pospular question. Did the universe really start with the "big bang" or was the Earth and its people created by God? Did we develop our advanced ways of thinking through evolution or did God give them to us? We may never know for sure one way or another, so we may never know the origins of our "nurture" influence. I think that before we can further speculate "nature vs. nurture" it would be a good idea to examine the origins of nurture, and how, or if, they devellpped from nature.

Would you act any differently if you were absolutely sure there was no type of afterlife? Do you think others would? Why/ why not?

Respons to Yvonne's Question: Realism or Idealism?

I agree with Yvonne that realism is a more "ideal" concept than idealism, but I generally look at the world from an idealist perspective. Realism does seem to award humans "more credit," in its claim that we can indeed understand properties of the world outside our own minds. It is an easier concept to grasp, and gives us more confindence than the idealist perspective. The idealist perspective might seem infathmothable for some, since it suggests that we can never have complete knowledge of anything other than our own thoughts. Because we as humans have a tendancy to catagorize and label just about everything in order to understand it completely, this idea could be discouraging.
In my opinion, two of the most important intellectual values are intellectual courage: "a willingness to consider with an open mind ideas or lines of reasoningthat are unpopular or potentially dangerous." and intellectual humility: "a preparedness to acknowledge one's ingnorance or errorand proceed with inquiry." An idealist prespective requires, and encourages, these values. Though it may be uncomfortable for us to entertain the idea that we will never understand anything fully, it is important to keep an open mind so we will remain most susceptible to new knowledge. I like to think of this perspective as intellectually broadening rather than capability limiting; I believe it is important to acknowledge that, as humans, we are fallible, and that there is always more to be learned.

What do you think is the most important intellectual value mentioned in the philosophy toolkit?

This Post Is A Lie: On Absurd Concepts of Truth

In class on Monday we discussed absurd concepts of truth, and the question was posed: "How do we know if anything is true or real? What if we are all dreaming? What if we are all really brains floating in jars, influendced to perceive this world as being 'real' when it is in fact false?" Though I think that both of these scenarios are extreamily absurd and farfetched, I like to consider them for the sake of a good debate. After all, how do we know for sure one way or another? My major discrepancy with these situations, and the accompanying claim that everything we perceive is 'false,' is that the concept of being 'true' or 'false' is (to the extent of my knowledge) a human-created way of thinking, or was at very least developed in the world that we may or may not be 'dreaming.' If this is so, then the concept of truth is just another lie that we are influcened to dream up while floating in our jars, therefore making its application completely irrelavant to any existance outside the one we believe to be 'real.' Based on this line of thought, I have personally come to the conclusion that, since the debate over truth exists in the world we seem to live in, we can safely apply it to the things that we perceive in it, whether or not we are being influenced to perceive our surroundings by an alternative reality.

What other ways of thinking might lead one to the conclusion that everything we perceive is false?