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?